llDi

NBSIR 80-2005

Computer Science & Technology:

Investigation of Technology- Based

Improvement of the Eric System

Siegfried Treu

Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20234

May 1980

100

U56

Sponsored by:

National Institute of Education

"200 19th Street, N.W.

Vashington, D.C. 20208

contract No. NIEIA780015

NB^IR 80-2005

MkymHvu tmatAX) (W fVAMDiUtOB

LlBIUtT

MV ?4 1980

n- , :,,r_ .

^

'

UOi''-'

COMPUTER SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY:

INVESTIGATION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED

IMPROVEMENT OF THE ERIC SYSTEM

Siegfried Treu

Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

National Bureau of Standards

U S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D C. 20234

May 1980

Sponsored by;

National Institute of Education

1200 19th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20208

Contract No. NIEIA780015

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary

Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Deputy Secretary

Jordan J. Baruch, Assistant Secretary for Productivity. Technology, and Innovation

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS. Ernest Ambler. Director

INVESTIGATION OF TECHNOLOGY-BASED IMPROVEMENT

OF THE ERIC SYSTEM

Siegfried Treu

Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

National Bureau of Standards

and

Department of Computer Science

University of Pittsburgh

Abstract

Results of a one-year, NIE-sponsored study to identify

potential technology-based improvements in the operation,

access, and utilization of the Educational Resources

Information Center (ERIC) are described. Both current

problem areas and future possibilities are consi(3ered with

regard to the dichotomy: system components and the total

system. Emphasis is on characterizing the component

functions of data input and data output as well as the total

system operation in terms of applicable criteria (data type,

volume, purpose, performance) . Technological alternatives

are then discussed with reference to those criteria. The

report concludes with a structured summary of observations,

recommendations, and possible follow-up studies.

Key 'Words: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

information systems; micrographics; microfiche; computer

technology; communications technology; data entry;

optical character recognition; computer networks;

distributed processing; intelligent terminals; mass

storage technology.

iii
CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Study Groundwork 1

1.2 Pertinent Literature 2

1.3 Objectives and Scope ^

1.4 Supportive Resources 5

1.5 Guide to this Report 6

2. STUDY APPROACH 8

2.1 Technology and Users 8

2.2 Methodological Points 9

2.3 Functional Description . 10

2.4 Foci of Attention 14

2.4.1 System Components 16

2.4.2 Total System 16

2.5 Study Priorities 17

3. COMPONENT-ORIENTED CONSIDERATIONS 18

3.1 Data Input or Representation 18

3.1.1 Input Characteristics and Criteria ... 18

3. 1.1.1 Data Types 18

3. 1.1. 2 Data Quantities 19

3. 1.1. 3 Data Purposes 21

3. 1.1. 4 Performance Criteria 22

3. 1.1. 5 Framework of Factors .... 22

3.1.2 Microfilm and Fiche 23

IV
Page

3. 1.2.1 Prominence in ERIC 25

3. 1.2. 2 Pros and Cons 25

3. 1.2. 3 Guidelines to Quality ... 26

3. 1.2. 4 ERIC Document Reproduction

Service 27

3.1. 2. 5 EDRS Compared with Others . . 28

3. 1.2. 6 Inventory Results 29

3. 1.2. 7 Input Documents 30

3.1.2. 8 Reproducibility Guidelines. . 31

3. 1.2. 9 Potential Improvements ... 32

3.1.2.10 Future Prospects 35

3.1.3 Computer-Based Means 35

3. 1.3.1 Range of Possibilities ... 35

3. 1.3. 2 Direct Data Entry 37

3. 1.3. 3 Optical Character

Recognition . 38

3.1. 3. 4 On-Line Terminals 39

3.1.3. 5 Word Processing Equipment . . 40

3. 1.3. 6 High or Low Volume 41

3.1. 3. 7 Selected Storage

Technologies 42

3.1.4 Computer -Microfilm Composite 45

3.1.5 Text-Oriented Input Alternatives ... 45

3.1.6 Non-Textual Alterntives 48

3.2

Data Output or Presentation 48

3.2.1 Output Characteristics and Criteria • • 49

3. 2. 1.1 Data Types 49

3. 2. 1.2 Output Quantities 49

3. 2. 1.3 User Purposes 50

I
Page

3. 2. 1.4 Performance Criteria .... 52

3. 2. 1.5 Framework of Factors .... 52

3.2.2 Microfilm and Fiche 52

3. 2. 2.1 Dependence on Input .... 52

3. 2. 2. 2 Range of Uses 53

3. 2. 2. 3 Reading and Browsing .... 53

3. 2. 2. 4 Paper Copy Production .... 54

3.2.2. 5 Duplication of Fiche .... 55

3. 2. 2. 6 Searching a Fiche Collection . 56

3. 2. 2. 7 Future Prospects 56

3.2.3 Computer-Based Means 56

3. 2. 3.1 On-line vs. Off-Line .... 57

3. 2. 3. 2 Interactive vs. Batch .... 57

3. 2.3. 3 Hard vs. Soft Copy 58

3. 2. 3. 4 Peripheral Storage 58

3.2.3. 5 Remote vs. Local Search ... 59

3.2.4 Computer-Micrographics Composite .... 60

3.2.5 Text-Oriented Output Alternatives ... 61

3.2.6 Non-Textual Alternatives 61

4. TOTAL SYSTEM-ORIENTED CONSIDERATIONS 64

4.1

Interconnection of Components 64

4.1.1 Characteristics and Criteria 65

4.1.2 Networking 67

4.1.3 Distributed Processing . 71

4.2

Staf f-Networ k Interaction 73

4.2.1 Characteristics and Criteria 73

4.2.2 Input/Output Facilitation 74

4.2.3 Coordination with Management

V j

75
Page

4.2.4

Conferencing and Collaboration .... 76

4.3 User -Network Interfacing .76

4.3.1 Characteristics and Criteria 77

4.3.2 Technological Interface 78

4.3.3 Modes of Use 79

4.3.4 Types of Assistance 79

4.3.5 User Feedback 80

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 81

5.1 Current ERIC Technology 81

5.2 State-of-the-Art Technology 83

5.3 Approaches to Improvement 85

5.4 Range of Available Options 86

0 5.5 Suggested Follow-Ups 91

BIBLIOGRAPHY Categories 93

SUBJECT INDEX (Technological Terms) 105

vii

1 . INTRODUCTION

VJith apparently ever increasing advancements being made

in the area of technology involving information storage,

computer processing and communication, it is a tremendous

challenge for administrators of information systems to stay

abreast of the state-of-the-art and to initiate commensurate

system modifications which will benefit the users. This is

particularly true in the case of an operational information

system of national (and international) importance for which

the substantial population of current and potential users

exhibits an enormous diversity of needs, expectations and

preferences: some are conditioned to the present system and

like things as they are, others don't; some want minor

changes, others insist on major ones; some are comfortable

with technology-based system improvements, others prefer to

minimize human dependence on technology; some are in fact

users, while many who could be are not—for whatever

reasons. Needless to say, it is extremely difficult to

redesign the system to encompass and satisfy all of the

above

.

1.1 Study Groundwork

The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) of

the National Institute of Education (NIE) was designed and

developed in the 1960 's. A good early description of that

system is found in an article by Marron published in 1968

[ERI-1] .* The components and types of products of ERIC, as

they existed at that time remain remarkably similar to their

present-day versions, although a long list of commendable

improvements have been made over the years [ERI-2]

.

Marron 's paper also makes several* important points with

bearing on this study. Firstly, ERIC was envisioned to be

an information system "available to all segments of

education," including teachers, administrators, planners,

supervisors, counselors and students. However, it was

realized that ERIC v/ould definitely need help to achieve

such an ambitious goal, through the deveiopment of a supportive network of resource organizations such as

regional educational laboratories, various state agencies

and numerous local information centers. This, then, led to

advocacy of the wholesale-retail concept for ERIC which

still appears to exist today. That is to say, ERIC was to

be the "wholesaler" of information products and services

while various other organizations would assume the retailing

of those products and services and, hence, the direct

*Note: Due to the multi-facet nature of this project, the

BIBLIOGRAPHY is organized into categories listed in

alphabetical sequence according to three-letter mnemonic

labels representative of particular subjects. With each

such category, e.g., ERI (standing for ERlfC Description), a selected set of publications is listed in numeric order.

1
interaction with the massive user population.

Secondly, ERIC was viewed as a kind of hybrid system

from the standpoint of being partly centralized and partly

decentralized. The latter applied (and still applies) to

subject specialists working in the then 19 (presently 16)

ERIC clearinghouses located throughout the U.S. to provide

input to the system; decentralization also, of course,

applies with regard to the above-mentioned type of retail

delivery of information to users. On the other hand, ERIC

was portrayed as centralized in terms of document

processing, computer activities and management functions

pertaining either to Central ERIC (i.e., the NIE-based ERIC

management) or the ERIC contractors (e.g., for producing

microfiche of ERIC documents) . Both advantages and

disadvantages of such a hybrid approach to the structure and

control of a nationwide information system/network were

indicated by Marron.

For purposes of this study, the above highlighted

points about the original (and still largely retained)

design philosophy of ERIC, are significant. They will be

seen to have considerable influence, both in positive and

negative respects, on questions of potential application to

ERIC of state-of-the-art technology. Finally, in setting

the stage for the objectives and scope of this research

work, it is interesting to note Marron' s description of a goal for ERIC [ERI-1] : development of an on-line, remotely

accessed search system for the ERIC files, with the aim of

allowing "any interested institution to interact with the

ERIC database, from any place in the country, or the world,

using a commercially available communications system." At

face value, this quote points to the powerful

computer/communications networks available today. To what

extent ERIC has achieved the above 1968 stated plan will be

observed through the functional description of the current

ERIC system to be presented in Section 2.3. To what extent

ERIC could or should utilize technology to improve its

information products and services underlies the objectives

of this work. Before describing those objectives, more

should be said about the ERIC-related literature.

1.2 Pertinent Literature

A variety of publications presenting the

characteristics and uses of ERIC is available and was used

for this study. Such descriptive material is identified in

the "ERIC Description" or ERI category of the adjoining

bibliography. However, ERIC has also been the subject of

much public discussion and evaluation over the last decade.

Ample examples of both praise and criticism can be found in

the open literature.

2
Among the most substantial (although already dated)

ERIC evaluation studies is the one carried out by Frye

[EVA-|1] . It should be noted that its emphasis was on

evaluating ERIC products and services, by means of survey

techniques for measuring use and user reaction. While

results of such a study may carry implications for

improvement of the system (as will be evidenced later) , they

must not be interpreted as representing a direct system

evaluation as such.

Many other studies, e.g., Steiger's work which focussed

on retrieving product information from. ERIC [EVA-2] , could

be referenced here and characterized with regard to

differing evaluative emphases. However, a more compact and

efficient v;ay to accomplish that purpose is to identify a recent NIE-sponsored study by Havelock [EVA-3] . His paper

reviews over thirty empirical investigations into one or

more aspects of the ERIC system, carried out during the

period 1969 to 1977. Descriptions of applicable

methodologies and salient findings are included.

Among the most interesting and pertinent results of

Havelock's work, speaking in behalf of the ERIC evaluation

studies collectively, are the following:

1. The bulk of ERIC searching is still done by hand.

However, particularly in recent years, considerable

interest in on-line searching has been shown. In

fact, if there appears to be an area of rapidly

expanding and strongly advantageous use of ERIC, it

is on-line searching. Users of on-line facilities

report very high levels of satisfaction, especially

with regard to speed and flexibility.

2. Input processing practices among ERIC cler inghouses

vary considerably with little agreement or

coordination of effort. Also the studies analyzed

by Havelock exhibited a lack of information on

"ERIC as a whole," e.g., with respect to

interconnections among its component parts.

3. Almost three-fourths of the standing-order

customers of microfiche are colleges and

universities, suggesting limited access to that

medium by the vast majority of other educators.

ERIC is actually used by a small proportion of

those for whom it has potential relevance and

benefit.

4. The most salient and consistent finding across the

studies reviewed is the need for services that are

highly localized and immediately and easily

accessible. , Apparently, the vast majority of

potential ERIC users do not use j it because they

3
perceive a lack of such local accessibility.

Regrettably, because most ERIC studies consider

only persons who are ERIC users already conditiond

to ERIC accessibility as it exists, the "potential"

user concerns are neglected.

5. No credible or reasonable approach has been found

for subdividing or partitioning the ERIC file to

render access more effective and efficient for

special categories of users.

A draft copy of Havelock's report [EVA-3] was made

available to this project several months after the latter

started in 1978. The above-stated (often literally quoted)

results will be shown to provide confirmation or

reinforcement for various technology-based improvements of

ERIC to be suggested in our work.

1.3 Objective and Scope

Consistent with the originally stated project scope,

the primary purpose of this study of the ERIC system was to

identify potential improvements in the operation, access and

utilization of the system through the application of

state-of-the-art technology both to system components and to

the system as a whole. The improvements were to be

presented in terms of possible alternatives along with

indications of associated benefits to be derived. In so

doing, this report was to suggest or point to specific

avenues of further, more detailed study, design and,

perhaps, implementation involving ERIC; it was not itself

to result in actual design specifications for any particular

technology-based alternative described.

Besides considering the above-mentioned dichotomy

between component- and total' system-orientation (to be

clarified further in the next section), this study was also

to address the question of ERIC improvement from both of the

following standpoints:

1. Given identified problem areas in the ERIC system,

how can technology serve to alleviate if not

eliminate them?

2. Given known advancements in technology , how can

they be brought to bear on the ERIC system?

With regard to the former, the NIE specified several problem

areas of particular concern. These could generally be

characterized as pertaining to interest in improving or

determining alternative technological means and modes for:

inputting or representing documents and| surrogate data.

4
followed by storage and updating of the resulting data base,

and leading to outputting or presentation of those

documents/data to the users. Elaboration on these study

interests, supplemented and then prioritized in agreement

with the NIE, is provided in Section 2.

As far as the second above-stated study standpoint is

concerned, we were given the freedom to consider any other

prospective application of technology, ranging from the area

of micrographics to mass information storage devices to

computer /communications networks and distributed processing.

The work was, therefore, to be partly pragmatic in nature

with respect to currently feasible problem solutions and

improvements and partly futuristic or "blue sky" with regard

to desirable but, perhaps, not yet economically or otherwise

attainable use of technology. That attractive license to

consider virtually any reasonable application of

state-of-the-art technology for the improvement of ERIC was,

of course, necessarily constrained by the limited one-year

duration and the relatively small level of effort allocated

to tHe project. Furthermore, as is to be expected,

NIE-indicated priorities on study topics were followed.

Consequently some topics received considerably more

attention than others, and still others had to be neglected

or altogether omitted.

1.4 Supportive Resources

In addition to the pertinent information to be found in

the literature, as reflected by the adjoining bibliography,

this project was significantly dependent on the availability

and cooperation of a number of resource personnel who were

actually visited and consulted to varying extents. Members

of the following NIE/ERIC-associated staffs were involved:

1. Central ERIC staff (Washington, D. C.)

2. The staffs of almost half of the ERIC

clearinghouses (located in the Washington, D.C.

area, Ohio and Illinois)

3. ERIC Facility staff (Bethesda, MD)

4. ERIC Document Reproduction Service-EDRS (Arlington,

VA)

5. Research and Information Services for

Education-RISE (King of Prussia, PA)

Other ERIC-related personnel were contacted less formally at

conferences or through telephone calls.

5
Supportive resources were also made available within

the National Bureau of Standards. The principal

investigator had access to a number of experts in the areas

of micrographics, computer/communication networks and

distributed processing, and other technological

specialities. Noteworthy contributions are acknowledged

where appropriate in the text of this report and/or through

listings in the bibliography.

1.5 Guide to this Report

To generate a readable and useful product for the NIE,

this report is purposely organized and indexed to facilitate

access to its contents. Firstly, the approach to conducting

the study is described in Section 2. It includes the

methodological considerations, foci of attention and study

priorities which were used to guide the investigation. A

functional description of the current ERIC system is also

presented. The reader who is already familiar with ERIC and

less interested in methodology and priorities than in study

results may wish to skip Section 2 and go directly to one of

the other sections.

The reader can access this report in either of the

following ways:

1. Guided by the subtopics listed in the Table of

Contents under each of the three major result

chapters

,

Section 3: Component-Oriented Considerations

Section 4: Total System-Oriented Considerations

Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

identify and locate the corresponding report

segments

.

2. Guided by the Subject Index which is attached,

determine whether and where something is said about

a topic of interest.

The first, above stated approach to accessing study

results confirms the objective (see Section 1.3) of

considering technology application prospects both for ERIC

system components (Section 3) as well as for the ERIC system

on the whole (Section 4) . In each case, pertinent

characteristics and criteria are developed and use of

tabulations of available alternatives is made, tied into

discussions of the pros and cons in the text.

Sections 3 and 4 are intended to present the spectrum

of assessments made and prospects identified in this study,

both with regard to current as well as potential future use

6
of technology in ERIC. Many specific suggestions for ERIC

are interspersed in those sections. However, a concentrated

summary of conclusions and recommendations affecting ERIC is

not made until Section 5. The reasons for this separation

include our perceived need and preference to place

recommendations on technology-based improvements of ERIC in

their proper context. That is to say, for a large, complex

system such as ERIC (and its associated, supportive

information centers) , technological innovations or

improvements can be suggested; however, the likelihood of

their success or possible acceptance is necessarily

questionable until or unless other, perhaps "nontechnical"

but highly influential factors are taken into account.

These factors may be sociological, psychological and

economic in nature. Because we were able to elicit a number

of such influences during the course of this work, we deemed

it preferable to add appropriate qualifiers and conditions

to our recommendations. The interested reader, therefore,

has the additional alternative of going directly to Section

5 for such context-based results.

7
1

2 . STUDY APPROACH

To foster better understanding of an investigation into

how a particular system might be improved using technology,

it is incumbent on the investigators to describe the system

studied, the methodological guidelines established, the

definitions employed, the assumptions made and any other

factors which serve to clarify and delimit the basis and

applicability of the results obtained. As was stated

earlier, this section may be omitted by the reader who

already knows the ERIC system well and is primarily

interested in a cursory look at the results found in one or

more of Sections 3 through 5.

2.1 Technology and Users

The word

as "machines

most people,

processing

computers

,

equipment

.

those who are

prospects of

by machines)

all-consuming

operation

.

"technology" probably conjures

," "equipment," and "hardware"

When placed into the context

systems, these are usually

communication devices and

Technology also leads many people, especially

not very technology-oriented, to think about

ever increasing automation (or replacing humans

and about what usually appears to be the

emphasis, namely greater efficiency in system

up such terms

in the minds of

of information

exemplified by

micrograph ics

However, efficiency should not be the only determining

factor in assessing system improvement. Particularly in

information systems such as ERIC, involving significant

human interaction with machines, the effects of technology

on system performance m.ust be evaluated more

comprehensively. The user-system re] at ionships must also be

taken into account (EVA-4) . This means that besides typical

questions about efficiency (involving such quantitative

measures as cost, volume, capacity, throughput, time)

questions about effectiveness (pertaining to the more

qualitative aspects of the system and its products) and also

about synergism or symbiosis (dealing with characteristics

of the user-technology interface, user needs and preferences

and even various environmental influences) must be answered.

Consequently, selected interrelationships between/among the

efficiency-effectiveness-synergism considerations can lead

to productivity, cost-benefit and other meaningful

evaluation studies.

Although this study is not an evaluation as such of the

ERIC system, its investigative nature nevertheless carries

some evaluative overtones. When asking about how well ERIC

would do given certain types of technological changes or

innovations, therefore, it is important to have an

understanding of what system testing and evaluation, v;hen

formally carried out, are all about [e.g., EVA-5). Effects

of technology can be assessed very selectively with only

8
efficiency in mind [EVA-6] or comprehensively with interest

not only in technology but also in the associated people and

their interactions with the technology [EVA-7]

.

The main purpose of the above discussion is to convey

the orientation adopted for this study: technology-based

system improvements of ERIC should not merely be

hypothesized and recommended in technical terms using

efficiency arguments; they must also be justified with

regard to psychological, sociological, management and other

considerations applicable to the people (end users,

intermediary users, potential users, staff, administrators,

etc.) associated with ERIC. While this approach makes a study considerably more complex and difficult in nature, it

also promises to generate more realistic and useful results.

2.2 Methodological Points

Because this small-scale study was not commissioned to

be a formal evaluation of the ERIC system or some part

thereof, methodologies for testing it, carrying out

experiments on it, conducting well-structured pilot studies

in conjunction with it, and other such possibilities do not

apply. The objectively obtained, statistically significant

evaluative data that could result from such studies are

therefore not to be found in this report (except via

reference to other publications) . Hopefully, as will be

discerned later, such well-organized, follow-up studies will

be precipitated by our work.

How, then, was this investigation into technology-based

improvement of ERIC, probably the first such attempt to

seriously consider technological alternatives for ERIC on a global basis, actually conducted? The general approach can

be characterized as follows:

1. Project organization and scheduling , in terms of

major foci of attention (Section 2.4) and study

priorities (Section 2.5), to assure that at least

the most important alternatives would be considered

during the one-year study period.

2. Information collection and compilation , given the

available literature and utilizing the various

NIE/ERIC and NBS resources people identified in

Section 1.4.

3. Assimilation and attempted correlation of the

information on the

(a) ERIC system, on the one hand,

with its operational problems

and prospects, and the

(b) Present and potentially

9
applicable (to ERIC) technology,

on the other hand.

4, Development of profiles of pertinent information

processing and communication characteristics and

cr iter ia to enable structured comparison of

technological alternatives.

5, Formulation and discussion of feasible alternatives

for technology-based improvements of ERIC, with the

possibility of repeating the above steps as

necessary.

The information collection phase, with regard to the

ERIC system, was largely dependent on personal contacts and

interviews. It was decided, in discussion with the NIE

staff, that a questionnaire approach was not desirable. The

visits and interviews produced much useful but obviously

subjective material. A number of the collected thoughts and

opinions about ERIC will be reflected in later parts of this

report.

In addition to the five steps or phases outlined above,

this investigation was necessarily also dependent on

investigator knowledge, experience and even intuition.

Recommendations must therefore be viewed as outcomes of

investigator-controlled syntheses of available facts,

opinions and conjectures. This means that the results are

largely subjective in nature, representing investigator

judgment or opinion. However, that subjectivity is tempered

somewhat by presenting alternative configurations or

solutions (as opposed to only the one deemed "best")

v;henever possible.

2.3 Functional Description

ERIC is a national information system which was

intended to serve the following two needs of the educational

community [ERI-3] : to acquire and guarantee ready access to

the range of hard-to-find education literature, and to

produce new information products for decision-makers and

school personnel based on the volume of reports and related

mater ial

.

To achieve the above-stated purposes, ERIC carries out

the follov/ing broadly stated actions [ERI-4] :

1. Collects, screens, organizes and disseminates

reports

2. Furnishes copies of educational documents at

nominal cost

10
3. Acts as an archive of educational literature

4. Prepares interpretive sumniaries, research reviev/s,

and bibliographies on critical topics in education

5. Services information centers throughout the country

6. Answers education information questions

But these do not reveal how and where documents are

collected, copied, archived, etc.; likev/jse, they don't say

how the other services are provided. However, answers can

be elicited from a variety of descriptive materials, as

indicated by the listing of items in the ERI segment of the

attached bibliography.

To get a better understanding of what constitutes the

ERIC network, and what is done where, reference is made to

Figures 1 and 2 respectively. Figure 1 displays ERIC with

emphasis on its four levels regardless of interconnections

among components [ERI-5] . Of particular interest is the

nationwide network of 16 clearinghouses. These

clearinghouses collectively represent the primary source of

input to ERIC. According to ERI -4:

Each specializes in a different,

multi-discipline, educational area.

Each searches out pertinent

documents-current research findings,

project and technical reports, speeches

and unpublished manuscripts, books, and

professional journal articles. These

materials are screened according to ERIC

selection criteria, abstracted and

indexed. all of this information is put

into the ERIC computer database and

announced in the ERIC reference

publications.

But Figure 1 does not give enough detail about the flow of

documents and products through ERIC, ultimately to be

accessible to the user. It also gives no evidence of what,

if any, technology is currently being employed at various

nodes of the ERIC network. Figure 2 characterizes the

interrelationships and it also gives general hints on the

technology presently in use.

Input items are processed and dichotomized by the

clearinghouses into paths for the report literature and the

journal literature respectively. Aside from the

miscellaneous types of equipment (e.g., on-line terminals to

commercial search systems, copying machines, etc.) used in

conjunction with providing services in their roles as

special information centers, the clearinghouses are mainly

11
GOVERNMENT

LEVEL zo ^ <oz uKoL/1 UJ o^ o z

CO < iff «

Ui

U

O

</) o o ^ 5 *• 5 o < ^ z Xoz

0^< ^ z z UJ o ^

_j bl UJ U <s3 Z o 5 “ s = z O UJ

S:< s O O M «» zo-<u3OUJ

Q Z

i/I

y o ^ o O i

oe

OX

J=< < - 5^ < O u 3 < u>

Ui li 3 Z OUi “gli/I

12 <o

ceo

COu

ccu

u

_J

ca3

Ql I i

I): 1 ; I II t
I

13

FIGURE

2.

DOCUMENT/SURROGATE

PROCESSING

THROUGH

ERIC
involved with OCR-oriented devices which allow document

surrogates to be input to the database via the ERIC

Facility. On the output side, they have assortments of

equipment for reading and maybe printing from microfilm,

besides ordinary copying machines. As will be noted later,

a few clearinghouses have been involved with special efforts

or experiments in using other technology, e.g., word

processing computers.

The journals path of the input dichotomy (Figure 2) is

handled relatively easily by forwarding the document

surrogates only (no paper copies involved) to the publishing

contractor who then produces the Current Index to Journals

in Education (CUE) and other spinoff publications. Our

study does not concern itself with the composition and

printing equipment used by the publishing companies.

On the more complicated side of the input dichotomy

(see again Figure 2) is the processing of the report

literature. Both the paper copies and the surrogates (on

OCR-compatible forms) of docum.ents accepted by ERIC

Clearinghouses must be submitted to the Facility. The

latter then edits and validates the surrogates (abstracts,

index terms) and adds them to a computerized database, using

OCR equiment and the computer facilities of a commercial

timesharing service. As a consequence of this surrogate

data processing, the abstract journal Resources in Education

(RIE) is produced by the Government Printing Office (GPO)

and, furthermore, the database segments are sold (on

magnetic tape) to commercial providers of computerized

search services and other agencies with their own computer

search systems. The various local information centers can

then of course have access to them.

One more branch off the Facility node (in Figure 2)

remains to be discussed. The Facility must also prepare the

paper copy documents themselves for filming by the ERIC

Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) . The latter has the

capabilities to produce microfiche of all the submitted

documents, and either to provide microfiche duplicates for

about 680 standing-order customers or to generate paper copy

reproductions of documents and microfiche duplicates in

response to customer orders. This micrographics activity in

ERIC represents one of its heaviest uses of technology.

2.4 Foci of Attention

Realizing that it would not be possible in this

one-year study to consider all aspects of technology

application to ERIC, an early requirement was to identify

the major foci of attention. Figure 3 gives a diagrammatic

overview of the areas which, from the investigator's

viewpoint, appeared to be most critical and which promised

most fruitful results in terms of technology-based

improvements. As was stated in Section 1.3, ERIC was to be

considered both with regard to selected components as well

as its network on the whole. Corresponding topics are

outlined in the following two subsections respectively.

14
FUNCTIONAL COMPONENT-ORIENTED

DATA INPUT

OR

REPRESENTATION

TO/BY

THE ERIC NETWORK

T"

COMPUTER- OTHER

BASED MEDIA &

MEANS PRODUCTS

DATA OUTPUT

OR

PRESENTATION

TO

THE ERIC USERS

COMPUTERIZED OTHER

SEARCH MEDIA A

RESULTS PRODUCTS

*

* 21 IMPLICATIONS OR I EFFECTS

©

ERIC NETWORK

STRUCTURED

DISTRIBUTED

PROCESSING

STAFF USER

INTERFACING INTERFACING

WITH WITH

ERIC NETWORK ERIC NETWORK

function al network-oriented

FIGURE 3. FOCI OF ATTENTION

15
2.4.1 System Components

With reference to the circled numbers in Figure 3, the

component-oriented topics that appeared to be most relevant

and critical were

(1) The means and methods for entering

documents and their surrogates into the

ERIC system, whether into

machine-readable or other storage media.

This was to encompass scrutiny of ERIC

microfilming of documents, on one hand,

and various computer-oriented techniques

(e.g., OCR and word processing), on the

other hand.

(2) The means and methods for outputting or

presenting (to ERIC users) those data

that were somehow input to the system.

Thus this topic is of course intimately

related to or dependent on topic (1).

However, the emphasis here was to be on

the technological user-system interface

which presents or displays the

information

.

2.4.2 Total System

After considering the above-specified functional

components of ERIC, emphasis was to shift to the ERIC

network on the whole. Selected topics were, again with

reference to Figure 3:

(3) Possibly complete restructuring of ERIC

based on applications of computer

networking, distributed processing,

minicomputers, etc.

(4) Under the umbrella of topic (3),

technology-facilitated communication and

coordination of ERIC clearinghouses,

staff and management.

(5) Likewise in the context of studying topic

(3), the means and methods of interfacing

users to the ERIC network, with the

objective of greater satisfaction of user

needs/expectations/preferences.

Finally, throughout the study we had to be cognizant of

the fact that the whole is dependent on its component parts:

» (6) Implications or effects of topics (1) and

(2) on (3) through (5), and vice versa.

16
2.5 Study Priorities

After correspondence and consultation with NIE on the

foci of attention outlined above, it was determined that NIE

considered the first two interdependent topics, namely,

(1) Data input or representation, and

I (2) Data output or presentation,

particularly with emphasis on the use of microfiche, to be

of priority interest. Some aspects of topic (5) dealing

with the ERIC user interface were indicated as being also of

considerable interest. Finally, the remaining,

above-outlined topics, possibly involving major

restructuring of the ERIC network, although not to be

ignored were to be viev;ed and treated as secondary in

importance as far as NIE was concerned.

While this report reflects the NIE-ind icated study

priorities, it is nevertheless an attempt to be reasonably

comprehensive in spite of the obvious constraints (in time

and manpower available) on this project.

17
3. COMPONENT-ORIENTED CONSIDERATIONS

In a large system, it is often desirable or even

necessary to scrutinize selected parts or components either

due to observed performance problems which they have

engendered or perhaps because improved means for

accomplishing those component functions have become

available. The investigators must, of course, be sure to

realize that modification of a part generally carries

effects or implications for the whole.

This section presents the results of our study with

regard to the top-priority functional components of data

input/representation and data output/presentation. Section

4 then incorporates and envelopes this material by looking

at the ERIC network on the whole.

3.1

Data Input or Representation

Any information system must have facilities for

entering or inputting v;hatever information (or data) it is

to encompass. In the process, it m.ust employ the

transformation or translation techniques which are suitable

for the available system-internal data representation

formats and media. This data input and representation

function is discussed in the following subsections with

respect to generally applicable characteristics, different

technological means and media, and comparison of available

alternatives

3.1.1

Input Characteristics and Criteria

To consider technological alternatives for handling the

data input and representation function, the characteristics

of those input data and the criteria for processing them

must be understood. It is, therefore, important to first

define and distinguish such characteristics and criteria.

In so doing, this section adopts special identifying labels

for ease of reference and later use in the tabulated

comparisons of technological alternatives.

3.

1.1.1

Data Types

The types of data that may, in general, be entered into

an information system can be categorized as follov;s, tying

them into the most prominent and suitable sensory faculties

of human users:

Dl. Visual data

(1) Textual or alphanumeric

(a) Full text of any documents (papers,

reports, procedures, etc.)

18
(b) Surrogates of such documents

(citations, index terms, abstracts)

(2) Statistical or numeric

(3) Graphic, diagrammatic and pictorial

(4) Combination of above

D2. Audio data (e.g., speech, music)

D3. Tactile data (e.g., in Braille)

D4. Combinations of above

(1) Audiovisual

(2) Other

The ERIC system is presently almost exclusively

oriented to processing visual data (Dl) which are textual

and ,of the printed and/or microfilmed varieties. The

so-called nonprint items, such as films, filmstrips,

videotapes, audio recordings, etc., can not as yet be input

and processed.

From the human sensory standpoint, the above

categorization can be interpreted as substantially

independent of the media employed. In a way, that is what

information technology is about: the maintenance of the

identity of a type of data (or information) such that it is

recreatable or reproducible (ideally) without any loss of

accuracy or even aesthetic appeal. In addition, it may be

possible to transform the information using technology in

order to enhance it and/or complement it with other types of

information (e.g., in multi-media representations).

Realistically, each of the above categories, of course,

becomes associated with the most prominent current media

available. For example, textual data immediately suggest

paper documents or microfilm or computer storage. But which

is most appropriate? Likewise, which technological media

for input and representation are available for each of the

other above-categorized types of data and why is one better

than another? To pursue such questions further, additional

characteristic guidelines are developed in the next

subsections

.

3. 1.1. 2 Data Quantities

One of the determining factors in deciding what

technology to use to input data into an information system

is the sheer quantity or density of the data. We know that

the full text of some document may be several hundred times

as voluminous as a surrogate, such as its abstract. This

19
obviously has implications on how much input processing time

and effort must be expended on the two different levels of

document representation respectively. It also has a bearing

on the pure storage capacity required, on whatever medium,

to accommodate the data. In addition, the rate of flow of

such documents into the system must be considered to gauge

the collective effects.

Similar statements can be made about the other data

categories listed in the previous section. In some of them,

there are additional complications such as their conversion

from an analog form of data (e.g., a photograph or an audio

recording) to a digitized counterpart. The resulting data

volume (depending on sampling techniques employed) may be

substantially greater and less compact. It may also, of

course, be less accurate than the source.

In order to arrive at some general guidelines

indicating levels of data quantity or volume of relevance to

the ERIC system, assume that a typical report consists of

the equivalent of 100 pages, 60 lines per page and 100

alphanumeric characters per line. Such a report would then

amount to 600,000 characters resulting in the need for

approximately 120,000 words (on a 36-bit computer) or

150,000 words (on a 32-bit computer) of storage space. This

rough approximation (not counting overhead) can be used

further to estimate the requirements of handling a flow of

such documents over a period of time. For example, assuming

that ERIC inputs about 1200 such reports (for RIE) each

month, input processing would involve about three-quarters

of a billion characters and in the neighborhood of a 150 to

180 million words of computer storage. We shall term such

input volume "high level."

On the other hand, a bibliographic citation of that

same 100-page document, along with descriptors and abstract,

may typically consist of 60 lines of 50 characters each.

Its 3000 characters require relatively little storage,

ranging from 600 to 750 computer words. Of course the

monthly input of 1200 such items still requires from

three-fourths to nearly one million words. We shall

consider that input volume to be relatively "low level."

Thirdly, the other categories involving graphic,

pictorial and audio data are much more variable in terms of

data volume and hence less easily categorized. As is v;ell

known, "a picture is worth a thousand words" and in fact one

digitized photograph may well require millions of point data

(identifying shading, color, etc.) to be stored. Hence, the

per-item-volume for such data must generally be rated very

high, but the number of such items flowing into the system

could conceivably be quite low. Hence, we will consider

this input volume to be "special."

20
To summarize for purposes of later reference, the <^ata

input volumes are simply classified as:

VI. High volume

V2. Low volume

V3. Special volume

3. 1.1. 3 Data Purposes

The decision on which technological medium to use for a given data category with an associated volume should also be

dependent on the purpose (s) of the data being entered into

the system to begin with.

It would be poor planning indeed to input a high-quality data stream into a perhaps costly technological

medium without justifying that input in terms of intended

processing purposes and uses of the data. For example, if a full-text document is only to be reproducible but not

searchable (for answers to queries) in its full text form,

it makes sense to consider a medium which is less flexible

and costly but serves the purpose adequately. However, the

consequences of such a decision, in terms of precluding the

future searchability of the database, must be fully

acknowledged

.

Similar questions apply to the other data cateqories.

Statistical data may be simply collected for purposes of

reproduction (analogous to the alphanumeric case), maybe in

some established tabular format. It is quite a different

matter if those data are to be analyzable by computer. This

requires conversion to the internal representation which is

appropriate for computer processing.

Another kind of data purpose which warrants

identification is transformation to some alternative form or

view of the represented information. This is exemplified by

graphic data which may be structured for transformation

using computer graphics. Similar effects, although to

differing degrees, could result in processing pictures or

photographs (by means of sophisticated digitization and

pattern recognition techniques) as well as audio data (by

means of advanced speech recognition/analysis and music

digitization/recomposition methods)

.

In summary, the following three major purposes of

inputting and storing data in an information system should

be recognized:

PI. Data (Item) Reproduction or Copying

P2. Data Structuring, Searching and Analysis

21
P3 Data Transformation or Modification

Again, the associated labels are employed in later sections

to facilitate referencing and comparison within the general

framework of significant factors being developed.

3. 1.1. 4 Performance Criteria

Having dealt with the questions of what type of data is

to be input, how much of it, and what the purpose of the

input data is to be, we can ask about how fast and how well

the suitable technological alternatives available can

process the input. But, in order to try to respond to the

latter, at least general performance-related guidelines are

necessary. Using the efficiency-effectiveness-synergism

trichotomy mentioned in Section 2.1, management questions

about technology-based performance can be categorized as

follows

;

El. Efficiency:

What is the rate of input processing?

How much does the processing cost?

E2. Effectiveness:

How well is the data purpose met?

E3. Synergism:

How satisfied are the information users?

The above-stated questions are

which are likely to be most important

system changes. Their priorities may

the cost question may predominate

indicative of those

to persons considering

be such, hov;ever, that

the rest. In a formal

evaluation of a system, questions like those stated above

can be interpreted as performance criteria for which the

evaluation team must collect various kinds of objective and

subjective information, by means of appropriate measurement

techniques, questionnaires, etc. Consequently, ansv;ers to

the questions must be obtained through meaningfu'^

presentation, interpretation and use of the collected

information

.

For purposes of this study which is not a system

evaluation as such, the above-stated performance criteria

are also employed, but on]y to support general comparison of

various technological alternatives. Such comparisons are

made in several sections of this report.

3. 1.1. 5 Framework of Factors

22
Given the characteristics which were broadlv defined in

the previous subsections, our investigation of

technology-based improvement of data input and

representation in the ERIC system can be encapsulated with

reference to Table 1 as follows;

(1) With a number of different types of data

to be input, presently and perhaps in the

future, as a subset of

Data Types Dl, D2, D3 and D4

(Section 3, 1.1.1)

(2) And with different quantities of such

data to be processed, given

Data Volumes VI, V2 and V3

(Section 3. 1.1. 2)

(3) And having different reasons or purposes

for inputting such data into the system

in the first place, namely

Data Purposes PI, P2 and

P3 (Section 3. 1.1. 3)

(4) Then, if the desirable levels of performance

can be specified somehow (preferably by

management) , in terms of

Performance Criteria El, E2

and E3 (Section 3. 1.1. 4)

(5) It should be possible to identify technological

means and methods which are being used or

could be used to accommodate different data

input profiles, i.e.,

D-V-P (Data Type-VolumePurpose) combinations,

with regard to required or desired performance

criteria E.

With reference to this framework of factors, which is

intended to provide some structure to our considerations of

what ERIC is doing and can do with data input technology,

the following sections discuss the major existing and

potential alternatives.

3.1.2 Microfilm and Fiche

The terminology employed in the area of micrographics,

as in other specialty areas, is often misleading or

confusing [MFF-1] . This is partly due to the growth of this

field which has led to new and perhaps unanticipated uses or

packagings of the technology, resulting in some overlapping

if not altogether conflicting meanings of terms. Hov/ever,

the literature includes good clarifying reports [e.g.,

MFF-2,3,4]

23
Table 1. Characteristics and Criteria for Investigating

Data Input Technology

DATA INPUT CHARACTERISTICS; Label

Type of Data

Visual Data D1

Textual or Alphanumeric Did)

Full Text Did) (a)

Surrogate Dl(l) (b)

Statistical or Numeric Dl(2)

Graphic, Diagrammatic, Pictorial Dl(3)

Combination of above Dl(4)

Audio Data D2

Tactile Data D3

Combinations of above D4

Volume of Data

High Volume VI

Low Volume V2

Special (Irregular) Volume V3

Purpose of Data Input

Data (Item) Reproduction or Copying PI

Data Structuring, Searching and Analysis P2

Data Transformation or Modification P3

INPUT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA - Efficiency El

I/O Processing Rate Eld)

I/O Processing Cost El(2)

Effectiveness E2

Quality of Results (w.r.t. Purpose)

Synergism E3

User Satisfaction

24
In this section, we present the micrographics

technology as one important means for inputting and

representing data in the ERIC system. Included are

assessments of various aspects of its current use as well as

indications of its potential for the future.

3. 1.2.1 Prominence in ERIC

Without question, microforms and, more specifically,

microfiche play a very prominent role in the currently

existing ERIC system (see also Figure 2). About 1,200 paper

copies of reports flowing into the system monthly are

microfilmed. Because approximately 680 organizations

(including around 50 in foreign countries) have standing

orders for complete ERIC microfiche sets, ERIC delivers

about 21,000 microfiche cards to each such subscriber every

year

.

This substantial use of micrographics, for representing

and maintaining the fugitive, non-journal reports of

interest to the education community, is considered by many

people to be the most visible and stabilizing element of the

ERIC system. Among the questions to be answered, however,

are whether that stabilizing influence should be retained

essentially as it exists or whether it should be

significantly modified and/or complemented by other

technological means.

3. 1.2. 2 Pros and Cons

In accordance with the characteristics defined in

Section 3.1.1, microfilm can be categorized as particularly

suitable for Visual data (Dl) , high volume of input (VI)

,

with the purpose of reproducing or copying the data (PI) for

ultimate viewing. In ERIC, the visual type of data involved

are primarily textual or alphanumeric in nature.

What about the performance of microfilm technology? In

general, its efficiency (El) is quite favorable. Rate of

input processing is of course considerable, especially when

presented in terms of number of characters "input" or filmed

per unit time. Beyond some preparatory work (e.q.,

pagination) required to set up the document pages for

filming, the input processing rate is only subject to the

camera speed itself.

The other efficiency-related factor, namely cost, is

also an attractive feature of microfilm. Relatively low

cost for high-volume input processing, in comparison with

other technological alternatives such as computers, was

clearly a major influencing force in gaining its status in

ERIC. Yet, that statement must now be carefully qualified

by pointing out that the above-specified purpose (PI) in

microfilming documents for ERIC is, jafter all, quite

restrictive. It does not allow for any automatic analysis

25
or searching of the data stored on the individual microfiche

cards themselves.

Thus, it becomes important in our investigation to

separate out what can be done well with current microfilm

technology from what it cannot do. With respect to the

former, the remainder of this "microfilm and fiche" section

is devoted to discussing our assessments of micrographics as

used in the ERIC system and as it could perhaps be improved.

This means that, for the useful but restrictive purpose

(namely PI) that microfilm is able to serve with relatively

good efficiency (see El criteria), we want to consider it

also from the standpoints of effectiveness criteria (E2) as

well as synergism criteria (E3) . It should be reemphasized

here that our present concern is with data input or

representation. The complementary side, namely data output

or presentation (covered in Section 3.2), will of course

present additional effectiveness and synergism

considerations as they apply directly to the users.

Those data input purposes (namely P2 and P3) which are

not served well by micrographics will be dealt with

separately in subsequent sections on computer-based and

computer-microfilm composite technologies.

3. 1.2. 3 Guidelines to Quality

If a paper copy document is to be photographed or, more

specifically, microfilmed, how is it done and, more

importantly, how is it done with high-quality and

cost-effective results? It is not the intention in this

report to present detailed descriptions of the microfilming

process. The rather extensive literature covering this area

(see sample set in MFF segment of adjoining bibliography)

can be easily referenced for technical discussions of

specific features.

In the 1960 's many people were still enamoured by how

microphotography worked and how much information could be

stored on microfilm [MFF-5] . Actually, it was reasonably

well developed by then, and ERIC, which was started in the

late 1960 's, saw fit to adopt microfilm as an integral part

of the system. But over the years, the continuing issues

surrounding how to employ microforms properly in information

systems (MFF-6] and how to improve the techniques for

microfilming [e.g., MFF-7] were discussed and debated. As a result, various advancements were indeed made.

Aside from having questions on how to choose from among

a great variety of sizes, forms and shapes of microforms,

and besides having any remaining concerns about related

standards, users of microfilm technology have become

increasingly sensitized to problems with quality of

microimages produced. A number of significant factors must

be taken into account in order to ascertain an index of

26
quality for a given micro-recording system. These range

from the readability requirement (e.g., in terms of

character size or height) to the loss resulting from

duplicating microfilm and to the resolving power

requirements given specified reduction ratios [MFF-8 and 9) . 'Recognizing that such technical quality guidelines do

exist, this investigation considered what microfilm

technology is specifically being used in the ERIC system,

how it compares with the state-of-the-art, and whether any

improvements may be indicated. As is described in the next

several sections, our investigative procedure and results

obviated any need to make detailed determinations of quality

indexes for ERIC-used m.icrof ilming equipment, even if that

had been feasible.

3. 1.2. 4 ERIC Document Reproduction Service

The microfilming for ERIC is carried out by a contractor. The ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS)

is, therefore, not an in-house department of ERIC as such,

although the document preparation work which feeds into EDRS

is performed at the Facility (see Figure 2) . Consistent

with the aforementioned fact that this study was not to be

an evaluation of ERIC, it v;as deemed (in consultation with

NIE) to be beyond the study scope to attempt any kind of

experimental testing of the microfilm technology employed by

the EDRS contractor. Any extensive observation of the EDRS

daily operations was also precluded. That would have been

both too disruptive and time-consuming. Hence, towards

arriving at our assessments of technology use in EDRS, the

following means or types of evidence v/ere employed:

(1) Several informal visits were made to EDRS

to discuss the operations with the manager,

tour the facilities and learn about the

repertoire of microfilming and related

equipment in use. A draft copy of a document

describing the operations (including quality

control) V7as also obtained [MFF-10] .

(2) Visits v;ere conducted to three other selected

microfilm service centers for purposes of

generally comparing their facilities and

operations against EDRS. Those three centers

had been identified as illustrative production

shops

.

(3) Summaries of results of a 13-month complete

inventory (period July 1977 to July 1978) of

the ERIC microfiche collection, in addition

to a partial inventory of four selected segments

of the file created by previous contractors,

were made available to this project by the

Facility staff.

27
(4) A publication entitled "Document Reproducibility Guidelines," compiled by staff members

of the Facility and EDRS for purposes of guiding

those involved in deciding on inputting reports

to ERIC, was sent to us for review late in 1978.

The sample copies displayed in that

document were produced by the EDRS contractor

and provide some further evidence on the

quality of equipment in use.

The latter three of the above-specified sources of

information about EDRS will be covered in the next three

sections respectively. It should be pointed out once more

that we are still emphasizing the inputting of documents

into ERIC to be microfilmed. Further evidence on EDRS

technology and the related problems as perceived by ERIC

users and information specialists will be discussed in

consideration of ERIC data output or presentation.

3. 1.2. 5 EDRS Compared With Others

Besides EDRS itself, three carefully selected microfilm

services in the Washington, D.C. area were visited and

toured. The three were chosen as being representative of an

"outstanding," a "very good," and a "fair" service

respectively. This subjective rating was made based on

investigator experience* with those organizations coupled

with their reputations. It was to encompass both the

quality of their equipment as well as their operations on

the whole. The visits certainly confirmed those ratings.

In direct comparison with the three other

representative services, it was concluded that the microfilm

technology and its use by EDRS can be judged as most similar

to the intermediate or "very good" service. EDRS seems to

be running a respectable operation around a solid selection

of filming and related equipment (including two high-speed

step and repeat cameras)

.

It is important to note, however, that unlike some

other microform production facilities, EDRS processes

whatever the ERIC facility sends. That is to say, judgments

on whether or not a document is of adequate tvpographic

quality (i.e., type size, contrast, etc.) are not made by

EDRS. It simply receives the paper copy documents already

selected, prepared and categorized by level (see next

section) , along with the document resume master (magnetic)

tapes, and then films the documents and produces the fiche

titles from punched paper tape (after titles are read from

magnetic tape and converted). In addition, it then

produces, upon demand, blowback paper copies from acceptably

*The principal investigator was accompanied on these visits

by Mr. Thomas Bagg of the National Bureau of Standards.

28
categorized microfilm.

What the above means is that EDRS is, on the one hand,

in the fortunate position of being able to exert their best

skills to apply good microfilm technology as effectively as

possible to whatever documents are already preselected for

them. As evidenced in the next section, concerned with

tallied error rates, some improvements are indicated.

However, on the other hand, EDRS is also in the unfortunate

position of being blamed for problems, especially associated

with poor quality input documents, over which it has no

control except via a monthly problem report v;hich can serve

to influence future input. In addition, ERJC is sa?d to

have an "archival" responsibility which technically should

mean the maintenance (perhaps in some vault) of all input

documents (or microfiche thereof) but vh5ch in oractice

means maintenance as well as use of the document collection.

As a result, the current EDRS contractor must also bear the

burden of complaints which are actually attributable to m.any

lesser quality microfiche generated by previous

contractor ( s)

3.1.2. 6 Inventory Results

For a period of thirteen months, the microfiche

produced by the current EDRS contractor were inventoried and

quality checked by the Facility staff. We were assured that

this was done on a fair, impartial basis. One of the

following four qualitative scores was thereby assigned to

each microfiche:

1. No Problems - Good Fiche

2. Minor Problems - Acceptable Fiche

3. Several Problems - M;;rqinal Fiche

4. Serious Problems - Unacceptable Fiche

With the total number of monthly RIE accessions ranging from, a minimum, of 1,081 to a maximum of 1,590 during that

13-month trial period, the monthly percentages of all item.s

which received above-indicated scores of either 3 or 4

(collectively) averaged at about 2.3%. This figure excludes

the Level III documents which are not actually made

available, as discussed in the next section.

In response to each monthly inventory and quality check

summary, EDRS provided detailed explanations of identified

problem cases. An assortment of difficulties can be

elicited from those responses, ranging from camera

malfunctions to human operator error. This interchange

between the ERIC Facility and EDRS is itself a constructive,

v;orthwhile step which surely leads to greater sensitivity on

29
both sides to existing problems and to their alleviation if

not total elimination.

However, it must be reported furthermore that many of

the apparent errors detected in the EDRS-produced microfiche

were actually due to the input documents themselves and

other problems beyond the control of EDRS. This matter will

be pursued further in the next section. In the meantime,

the approximately 2% average monthly error rate which can be

reduced further given many plausible explanations' by EDPH,

must be regarded as a reasonably respectable performance

under the circumstances of running a production shop. This

judgment is consistent with indications given by managers of

other high-caliber microfilming services.

3.1.2. 7 Input Documents

Since this investigation found the EDRS microfilm

technology and its related, supportive equipment to be

representative of the state-of-the-art, and since the recent

use of that technology appears to exhibit a respectable

level of operation in terms of low error rate, then what

seem to be the main difficulties which are at the root of

criticisms vented about EDRS products? These difficulties

must be dichotomized into document input (to ERIC) and EDRS

product output (to ERIC users) . The latter is discussed in

the next major section.

With regard to documents input, ERIC is categorizing

the source documents according to the following three

levels

1. Level I: Reproducibility of the document is judged

to be good enough so that it should be legible both

on a microfiche reader and in blowback, paper-copy

form. Users can therefore get them from ERIC in

either microfiche or paper copy. In addition,

these documents are either not copyrighted or a release has been obtained for them for use within

the ERIC system.

2. Level II: The document is judged to be onlv

readable on microfiche but is of unacceptable

quality for paper-copy blov;back; alternately or in

addition, this category may include copyrighted

documents for which only a limited microfiche

release has been obtained. Thus, these documents

are only available in microfiche form.

3. Level III: The document is either of

unsatisfactory quality for any form of reproduction

and/or it is restricted via copyright. Hence, it

is not available from EDRS, although the

publication source is cited. present Level III

input amounts to about 5%, primarily restricted by

30
copyright.

The main problem v;ith such categorization according to

document reproducibility (ignoring the copyright

restrictions for our purposes here) are v;ho will make the

judgments and what criteria or guidelines will be used for

making them. The old computer-oriented saying of "garbage

in, garbage out" applies with microfilming as it does with

computer input.

If EDRS is asked to microfilm a Level II document v;hich

is actually of very poor typographic quality, even the most

beautiful currently available filming and reproduction

technology is strictly limited as to what can be done.

Aside from some well-knov/n enhancement techniques (.e.g,

using office copiers) , automatic means for "creating

something out of nothing" do not exist. Either another

technological approach or perhaps non-technological methods

(administrative in nature) may have to be called upon.

It follows therefore that the decision by a well-intentioned, person to enter a document into ERIC which

is of significant content but of poor typographic quality

may generate a practically illegible microfiche and/or

blowback paper copy and consequently cause user complaints.

The reputation of ERIC and particularly EDRS (perhaps

totally undeservedly) is thereby , of course, not enhanced.

(So what can be done, if anything, to counteract this

problem? In selected cases, perhaps more could be done in

terms of (costly) human touch-up or retyping and tracing of

certain significant-content but poor-quality source

documents. Other than retyping and short of turning to an

alternate, more costly computer-oriented technology

(discussed in Section 3.1.1), the emphasis must be on

controlling the input of documents to ERIC.

ERIC is, therefore, to be commended for having expended,

a considerable effort towards producing guidelines intended

to support that objective.

3.1.2. 8 Reproducibility Guidelines

In recognition of the inconsistencies that have existed

in decision-making on which of the reports or so-called

fugitive documents should be included in ERIC, and at what

level (see previous section), v?ith regard to reproducibility

characteristics, a special guidelines document has been

prepared by ERIC [MFF-11]

.

This document is not concerned with subject content but

rather only with reproducibility, by considering a number of

significant factors which affect contrast and therefore

document readability upon reproduction. Among the

31
independent variables described are various typographic

factors (point size of characters, line widths or boldness

of face, character density, and font variations) in addition

to other factors such as background density and colored

printing. The effects of the interactions of several of

these variables are then portrayed. Finally, the results of

defective type, use of office copying machines and inclusion

of certain graphics (e.g., tables, drawings, photographs)

are demonstrated. All of these are backed up by means of

illustrative examples of original source items exhibiting

the factors of concern. The examples were actuallv

reproduced by EDRS. They constitute the bulk of this

publication although quite a few samples are as yet not

included [MFF-ll)

.

These reproducibility guidelines are unquestionably

much needed and should prove to be useful in controlling the

typographic quality of input documents. However, not all

ERIC-associated personnel are happy with the guidelines and

furthermore, as summarized in the next section, a few

improvements or corrections to the guidelines are

recommended

.

3.1.2. 9 Potential Improvements

For the type of data (Dl) , quantity of such data (VI)

and purpose (PI) intended to be served by the microfilming

and related equipment in use at the EDRS, it must be said

that the state-of-the-art technology * is there. Some

improvements could of course be made, for example, in

perhaps achieving a slight increment in camera speed or by

replacing the paper-tape input (for fiche titles) with

on-line terminal input. However, it is doubtful that such

particular improvements would be worth the cost. Another

change that might be considered is switching from the use of

vesicular to diazo film, particularly for those copies to be

used to make contact prints or duplicates. The resulting

quality would probably be better. However, the relatively

small cost difference (if any) may be viewed as significant

enough to stay with vesicular.

If the technology is good enough, then what might be

improved in terms of proper use or quality control of that

technology, and, lastly, what can be done about improving

the quality of input documents which that technology must

contend with?

With regard to use and quality control, our brief

glimpses of the EDRS facilities and the previously described

inventory results would suggest that the staff know what

they are doing. Obviously, it must be and was acknowledged

that human errors do occur and can be minimized by means of

the usual management-recognized incentives, quality control

measures and other policies. However, more thorough quality

control could be undertaken by EDRS with ,the usual increase

32
in operational costs. For example, a greater number of

fiche could be density-checked. Another more costly

I

possibility would be to have an organizationally distinct

quality control staff group inspect and qualify each piece

of equipment before its daily use. Again, given the purpose

of the EDRS operation, that type of control might be

I excessive. This is not to say that clearly defined criteria

for declaring the equipment operational should not exist and

be strictly adhered to by EDRS.

I What appears to be of far greater importance to ERIC is

[ the proper control of documents flowing into the system.

This returns us firstly to the Document Reproducibility

Guidelines [MFF-11] described earlier. Several improvements

or corrections to these guidelines should be indicated.*

Page numbers cited refer to those in the Guidelines.

1.

The samples should of course be completed and the

microfiche of the guidelines, promised on page 4,

should in fact be included in a pocket of the back

i cover.

2.

The term "point size" is used to indicate height of

characters (on page 5 and in other places)

Unfortunately, point size is only ah approximation

of the actual character size. In many instances a

I character with a smaller point size of one type

face is larger than one with a larger point size

I designation. Point size refers to the old slug or

type body size and is really the distance between

H the lines of type. Thus, on page 7 of the

guidelines where the type size of the print of that

I page is said to be 9 point, it is really larger,

approximately 12 point.

3. With regard to the correctly stated use of an

office copier (page 10) for purposes of testing the

original as to its potential for generating good

microcopy, the user of the guidelines should

furthermore be informed that the photocopying

|! process itself is a common technique for possibly

improving a low-contrast original document.

I Another good use of office copiers is pointed out

1

' as a remedial action on page 23. However, the

copying technique in general may or may not lead to

enhancement

4. The choice of the word "holograph" on page 10 is

I unfortunate in that it is used with reference to

» its archaic meaning, namely being handwritten.

Holographs have a different meaning in today's

*These suggestions resulted primarily from a review made by

Mr. Thomas Bagg of the National Bureau of i Standards.

33
literature [e.g., ORT-5]

.

5. The "Quality Index" method which was referred to

previously [MFF-8 and 9] might be considered as a most satisfactory technique for judging typographic

quality with regard to character size.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that aside from

suggested improvements of the guidelines for judging

document reproducibility, there have already been some

strong objections raised to those guidelines. Some people

associated with ERIC consider them as far too restrictive,

eliminating many of the very valuable items which really

should be in the ERIC file but which were possibly never

intended by their authors and typographic preparers to end

up in ERIC.

That presents a true dilemma; on one hand trying to

improve the quality of the ERIC microfiche file, largely in

response to user complaints; on the other hand, including

items of very poor typographic quality because of their

substantive value to the education community. As was stated

before, microfilm technology cannot perform miracles on some

faint, unclear, carelessly prepared original report or

perhaps a poor office copy of it. Hence, one further

improvement relates to administrative and technical

attention to how to prepare documents in the first place.

The published "Document Reproducibility Guidelines"

really address the question of whether a given document,

already produced and on hand, is typographically acceptable

to ERIC. NIE/ERIC should consider also the establishment of

guidelines for the preparation of materials [MFF-12]

,

thereby obviating the reproducibility guidelines in many

cases. One such effort can already be cited [MFF-13] . Any

guidelines must of course be suitably backed with

documentation and publicity mechanisms, including the

incentive of entering documents into the ERIC system.

Several other existing guidelines for preparing material for

micropublishing could be used as models [MFF-14, 15, 16].

ERIC would, of course, have to tailor such guidelines to its

own particular needs.

Even if such additional guidelines were produced,

publicized and distributed, surely there would still be many

documents generated which by content should be in ERIC but

whose preparers were not informed or did not care about

minimally acceptable typographic quality. (Most fugitive

documents are presently not specifically prepared for ERIC.)

What then? Then, as is restated in the data output section

of this report, there should be a clearly and explicitly

identified category of important but poor quality documents

available through ERIC, leaving no doubt in the user's or

viewer's mind as to where the blame of the poor quality

lies. Alternatively, if the document is important enough.

34
it should be retyped or, perhaps, processed via another kind

of technology.

3.1.2.10 Future Prospects

Is micrographics or microimagery here to stay?

Certainly, as might be expected, the related literature

claims that it is [e.g., MFF-17, 18, 19]. Generally

speaking, we also agree. However, we would suggest that in

order to enhance the purposes of micrographics (beyond the

previously identified PI) and render it more flexible in an

information system environment, it is likely within the next

decade to be much more coupled with or complemented by

computer technology. More will be said about this in later

sections. ERIC management should anticipate such

developments in looking towards future improvements of the

ERIC system.

3.1.3 Computer-Based Means

Having dealt with microfilm technology as one major

means for inputting and representing data in the ERIC

system, we must ask about other existing possibilities.

Again, the characteristics and criteria portrayed in Section

3,1.1 will be referenced for purposes of facilitating

comparisons between technologies and their uses.

3. 1.3.1 Range of Possibilities

If the data of a certain type (e.g., Dl) are already on

a particular medium, namely an ERIC paper copy (printed

page) report or a surrogate of it, the range of

possibilities for inputting those data into some

technological medium for minimal purposes of data copying or

reproduction (i.e., PI) can be portrayed using the following

dichotomy:

1. Technological means for eliciting the data

directly from the source

(a) Use of office copiers on the

source documents —an alternative

which we are not pursuing further

with regard to the ERIC production

requirements in general, but which

is, of course, acknowledged to

serve many useful (preferably

limited data volume) needs,

including the previously mentioned

remedial work for document input

to microfilming.

(b) Microfilming of the source documents —the important means discussed at

length in Section 3.1.2.

35
(c) Facsimile representation,

transmission and reproduction of a

source document —a special communicat ions-based method of "copying"

data, to be discussed again later

( Section 4.1.2) .

(d) Optical recognition of the source

document—an alternative requiring

a technology capable of identifying

the alphanumeric characters (in the

case of eric's textual data) and

converting them to computercompatible code in some computer

storage medium. So-called OCR as well

as prospective holographic techniques

[ORT-4] apply. Some form of

reproduction can then take place

under computer control.

2. Technological means for getting the data

indirectlv from the source:

(a) Keypunching or keying of data

from source documents into some

computer-readable medium (e.g.,

cards, papertape) —a well-knovm

alternative which we will not

consider further.

(b) Retyping or keying of source

document into a typographic

format/form v;hich is optically

recognizable and then transformable into computer-compatible

code —an alternative similar to

(1-d) above except that it requires

the intermediate preparatory

retyping of the text.

(c) Retyping or keying of source

document directly into computerbased storage—the alternative

that involves immediate usercomputer interaction, thereby

eliminating any intermediate

automtic character recognition

device

.

Another major alternative should be mentioned at this

point. It is based on the capabilities of alternative (2-c)

above, but it involves the actual preparation of documents

on a computer-based medium to begin with. Thus the

"original" source document would not have to be optically

recognizable (as required by both (1-d) and (2-b) above).

36
It would already be in computer- internal representation as

opposed to paper-copy form. It, therefore, could obviate

alternative (1-b) above, although it could be coupled with

computer-output microfilm (see Section 3.1.4) and, hence,

retain any benefits of the latter.

The following several sections are dedicated to the

computer-oriented alternatives suggested above. They should

confirm our position that we do not simplistically recommend

that all types of data input are to be "computerized."

Instead, we must continue to relate to the combinations * of

characteristics (summarized in Table 1) of data type (Dl,

D2, D3) , data volume (VI, V2, V3) and data purpose (Pi, P2,

P3) and to consider their prospective performance criteria

(El, E2, E3) . It may appear to be too costly (El) to

directly input to the computer an alphanumeric data item

(Dl) which is of high volume (Vl) and even of relatively low

volume (V2) . But, if it is realized by management that not

only the purpose of pure document reproduction (Pi) hut also

other purposes (P2, P3) could be served thereby, leading to

some significant, advantageous performance indicators (in E2

and E3) , perhaps the investment in such technology can be

justified after all.

3. 1.3. 2 Direct Data Entry

The possibilities of directly entering data (of volume

V2) into the ERIC system have already been addressed by an

ERIC-associated staff group and described in a final report

[DET-1] . ERIC is to be commended for having undertaken such

a project, although, the study was unfortunately

unrealistically short and encountered various problems with

equipment installation, communication line errors, and

personnel training and motivation. Consequently, although

it constituted an experimental comparison of alternative

technological modes of data entry to ERIC, the statistical

validity of the collected and analyzed data must be

seriously questioned (as is in fact done by the authors of

the report) . Nevertheless some useful indications,

recommendations and conclusions can be gained from the

reported work, as long as they are viewed in their proper

perspective. As will be observed in the following three

sections, references will be made to those results.

Due to their apparent importance to ERIC [DET-1] as

well as to other noteworthy organizations, such as the U.S.

Congress [DET-2] , the current and prospective technological

alternatives for entering data into a computer are discussed

below in the following order:

1. Optical character recognition

2. On-line terminals

37
i

3. Word processing equipment

Our reasoning behind this particular ordering of the topics

should become apparent in the three sections to follow.

Comparisons in terms of our defined data input

characteristics and criteria are made in Section 3.1.5.

3. 1.3. 3 Optical Character Recognition

OCR specialists cite interesting figures on reading

performance by OCR equipment. Typical OCR character

acceptance rates for single-font (machine printed)

characters are expected to be 99% to 99.99% [OCR-1]. That

same source quotes the expected acceptance rate of 97% to

99.5% for OCR direct reading of multifont (machine printed)

characters from source documents generated by up to 10,000

different typewriters with up to 40 different fonts

involved; the rate is between 98% and 99.5% for reading

numeric handprinted characters meeting industry and

manufacturer standards. However, certain albeit "remarkably

few constraints" still apply when it comes to recognizing

handprinting [OCR-2] , although it is safe to say that the

OCR technology will continue to be improved to minimize

restrictions.

Yet, it would appear that current OCR data entry

systems still leave something to be desired, especially from

the standpoint of ERIC requirements. The previously cited

data entry study [DET-1] listed several disadvantages of OCR

including difficulties in making corrections and rigid

requirements for character density and alignment to prevent

misreads

.

However, advancement in the state-of-the-art of OCR

technology can surely overcome such problems and render OCR

much more flexible and forgiving. VThat is really of greater

significance to ERIC is, firstly, the fact that OCR is a very specialized piece of equipment which must be maintained

by each clearinghouse but which, for the most part, is

usable for only one particular operation [DET-1] . As is

true for OCR in specialized transactions processing (in the

banking, credit card, retailing, airlines, etc., industries)

and for OCR terminal systems (e.g., with point -of-sale OCR

scanners and table-top remote OCR readers), v»e] 1-structured

data entry applications can be quite suitably handled by

OCR. But the equipment can normally not be used for

anything else.

Secondly, in the currently existing processing in ERIC

of the textual (surrogate) data for input via OCR, the fact

also is that human operator typing is required anyhow.

Whether we are discussing only the relatively lov.’-volume

(V2) surrogates or the high-volume (VI) full text docur.ents,

if microfilm technology has difficulties with legibility of

the fugitive, poor-quality printing, one c^n easily see that

38
accurate optical recognition of such printed characters

would also be troublesome. Hence, unless the preparation of

source documents can be somehow standardized or controlled,

ERIC cannot expect to rely on what would be a desirable

alternative [OCR-3] : the use of OCR on the source

documents/abstracts directly (as outlined in Section

3. 1.3.1). The labor-intensive keying of data must continue

unless they are already optically readable.

If such keying is indeed required, it makes good sense

to recognize the flexibility and richness in terms of data

manipulation capabilities to be gained by directly keying

those same data into computer -internal representation,

either by means of on-line terminals or via some word

processing system configuration. These options are

discussed in the next two sections respectively. As will be

seen, OCR will, thereby, not necessarily be replaced.

Instead it can be acknowledged as one possibly useful but

still specialized and restricted component in the context of

a word processing system [OCR-5]

.

3. 1.3. 4 On-Line Terminals

Computer terminals range from the very ''dumb'' to the

quite "intelligent" types. They can also be distinguished

in a number of other ways; serving interactive vs. batch

work, using asynchronous vs. synchronous communication, and

being off-line vs. on-line. These distinctions are of

course interrelated. They will be clarified in Section

3.2.3.

Many pages could be devoted to this topic alone;

numerous references could be given, including surveys of

available terminals [e.g., OLT-1,2,3]. But since our focus

here is on direct data entry alternatives for ERIC, we only

want to recognize that textual data can be keyed in using

some simple typewriter-like terminal or a keyboard with an

alphanumeric CRT and then be transmitted asynchronously to a computer. Thus, just as is true for OCR-keying of the same

data, a human operator is required, meaning labor costs.

However, that operator now has the considerable advantages

of using the computer software (e.g., text editor) to aid in

the data input process. Although this alternative was not

recommended j.s a result of the previously mentioned ERIC

study [DET-1] , we feel that the communications problems

experienced can be overcome and the cost-effectiveness of

on-line entry of document surrogates is dependent on what

else can be accomplished with the terminal equipment.

Rather than being a very specialized, one-operation

piece of equipment (analogous to the possible criticism of

OCR devices) , a terminal can be considerably enhanced and

rendered more or less "intelligent" through the use of

microprocessors [OLT-4] and a great assortment of storage,

input/output, communications and other facilities [OLT-5]

.

39
Realizing that the smarter the terminal is, the costlier it

tends to be, an important question to answer deals with

other ERIC functions to be served and advantages to be

gained from, such equipment besides the pure entry (v;ith

comparatively low error rates) . As is seen in the data

output section and later through the ERIC networking

considerations in this report, such justifying factors are

available.

In the meantime, the spectrum of possible terminal

configurations which, based on how much "intelligence" is

incorporated, may operate in the dependent mode (connected

to a computer) and/or in the stand alone mode (doing some

useful work locally, independently) leads us very naturally

to consideration of what are termed "word processing

systems .

3.1. 3. 5 Word Processing Equipment

V7ord processing systems can be viewed as having a history analogous to computer-oriented terminal systems:

from the very simple to the quite complex and intelligent.

The interesting thing is that, tov/ards the latter

(intelligent) end of the spectrum, word processing systems

may be indistinguishable from intelligent computer

terminals.

The ancestry of current word processing systems [WPE-l}

can be sketched on the basis of office-oriented equipment

starting with the lowly mechanical typewriter introduced

early this century. They then moved to automatic

typewriters (in the 1930 ’s), addition of punched paper tape

(in the 1950 *s), and then, in conjunction with the rise of

computers, to the tape cartridge typing system (of the mid

1960 's) which really got the current word processing

started. That was succeeded (around 1970) by the magnetic

card typewriters and use of magnetic tape cassettes for

storage of data. The 1970 's then brought a number of

additional technological enhancements to bear on word

processing, including video display systems, multi-keyboard

systems and other data storage media such as diskettes and

floppy disks.

Is a word processing system then identical to an

intelligent computer-based terminal? It can be. '"hree

different types of word processors are usually distinguished

(WPE-2,3] :

1. Stand-alone system: Worm.ally includes a typewriter

or a keyboard with CRT, combined v;ith edit and

control logic, some internal memory and some

peripheral magnetic storage device (s), such as

cassette, cartridge or diskette. In addition, some

more logic, arithmetic capabilities followed by

software programmability can rentier it to be a

40
computer in its own right. Then, vT.ith

communications interfacing provided, the word

processing computer can also communicate v;ith other

similar systems.

2. Shared-logic processor

’ This is similar to a timeshared or key-to-disk computer system. The

' logic, storage capacity and peripheral devices of a central computer are shared among a number of

keyboard editing stations. A minicomputer might

support a dozen or m.ore such stations. Any of the

variety of other computer-controlled peripherals

(including OCR input) may then become available.

This shared-logic approach can be especially

cost-effective in meeting high- volum.e textual

input and editing requirements. The v;ord

processing power and capabilities sharable among a number of stations may not be affordable if a single user (or stand-alone system) is involved.

3. Timeshared service

This refers to the well-known,

timesharing computer system which provides v/or^

processing support (perhaps as only one part of a repertoire of services) and can be accessed from

various terminal sites. It further confirms the

increasingly strong relationship betv;een

office-oriented, computer-based v;ord processors and

computer systems (or intelligent computer

terminals) supporting word processing.

Numerous vendors specializing in one or more of the

above-defined systems/services can be identified and

compared [V7PE-2] . Good sources are available to guide

management in the selection and evaluation of word

processing alternatives [\-7PE-4 through 7] . With regard to ERIC, a number of advantages of using

word processing systems (which might even include selected

OCR input) have already been pointed out by the authors of

the data entry study [DET-1] . Other advantages can be

indicated, particularly when placed into the prospective

ERIC networking environment. It must be recognized,

however, that there may be important implications resulting

from selecting a limited-capability "word processor" as

opposed to a true mini- or micro-computer based system V7hich

supports word processing. As is discussed in Section 4,

subject to ERIC plans and aspirations for the future coupled

with realistic determ.inat ions or projections of

clearinghouse processing volumes and requirements, the

computer-based approach should be seriously considered.

That is also part of one of the major alternati'/es for EPIC

suggested in Section 5.

3.1. 3. 6 High or Low Volume

41
Inherent in our discussions of microfilming and

computer-based means for inputting data into ERIC has been

an implied but very real "data volume gap." The technology

for microfilming has largely been used and justified as

suitable for high-volume full-text input (VI) ; the various

computer -or iented means, including OCR, on-line terminals

and word processing systems, have actually been primarily

employed for low-volume input (V2) . The distinction in ERIC

is of course between full-text documents and their

surrogates (or resumes)

.

Can computer-based word processors (which might include

an OCR capability) accommodate input of the full-text,

fugitive documents of interest to ERIC? Under present

circumstances, no. Furthermore, it is unlikely that ERIC

will or should altogether replace microfiche until or unless

a number of difficulties are solved or advancements are

made, including:

1. Standardization or better control over document

input, resulting in more reliable (perhaps direct)

use of OCR or possibly even leading to

encouragement/requirement of direct document input

to a computer-based medium by the authoring agencv.

2. Development of ERIC interests in doing more with

the contents of full-text reports and other items

than only storing and reproducing them. One

example would be the extraction and adaptation

(editing, formatting, etc.) of selected report

segments for local use (e.g., by a teacher).

3.

Further advancement and maturing of the technology

for providing cost-effective peripheral mass

storage facilities, preferably searchable in

nature

.

Because of the obvious requirement of supporting

large-volume data input with some alternative mass storage

facilities, several selected technologies are briefly

described in the next section.

3.1. 3. 7 Selected Storage Technologies

The computer-associated peripheral memory systems that

are most prominent and best understood are the magnetic

disks and drums and tapes. Quite a lot of data can of

course be stored on magnetic tape, and many current systems

including ERIC are doing exactly that. But their

sequential, slow-access and relatively bulky nature does not

really make them very attractive. Still they are being used

economically for such things as surrogate data storage and

dissemination (by mail)

.

42
Ordinary fixed- or moving head disk is faster, more

expensive and also awkward (especially for mailing) . It

takes quite a bit of disk for storage of full-text documents

and the use of such an efficiently searchable medium for

that purpose must be questioned unless full-text searching

or analysis is to be carried out. Disk-based searching of

bibliographic data bases (including author, title, index

terms etc.) is quite reasonable and is being done by many

existing computerized information systems (offering a great

variety of data bases including ERIC)

So what peripheral memory technologies have been or are

being developed as possible future alternatives to

microfiche? A useful report which describes and compares

the variety of such systems has recently been produced by

the National Bureau of Standards [ORT-1] . Separate reports

have also been written to focus exclusively on one

particular type of memory, e.g., magnetic bubble memory

[ORT-2]

In the interest of ERIC and because of NIE references

made to these particular memories, we wish to briefly

characterize two of the most prominent: optical (laser

beam) memory and video-disk memory. A third type, namely

holographic memory [ORT-5] giving 3-D effects, is an

"optical relative" appearing to be too expensive and

impractical to warrant ERIC attention at this time.

The optical laser beam addressable memory is viewed as

a potential alternative to conventional magnetic memory.

The data are stored in track-oriented format on metalized

film strips [ORT-1]. There are 13,000 user tracks per strip

and 15,385 eight-bit bytes per track, giving a total

formatted capacity (not including overhead) of 1.6 bil] ion

bits. A present laser memory system (compared with a moving-head disk system) has a capacity of 1 terabit (vs.

2500 megabits) with a transfer rate of 3.2 megabits (vs. 10

megabits) per sec. Average access time is less than 20

second (vs. 35 milliseconds for disk) . The cost is listed

at 360 microcent/bit (vs. 1 millicent/bi t of disk) . While

the laser memory is of much greater capacity, likei.y to

increase to as much as 1000 terabits for future library

purposes, and while it is cheaper (projected to go down to

10 raicrocents for a 2 terabit memory and as low as 1

microcent for a 1000 terabits), it is considerably slower.

The average access time may perhaps go down to 10 seconds or

so. Although it displays a number of advantages (in terms

of compactness, modularity, reliability, etc.), it must be

viewed as a storage alternative primarily suited for

maintaining (or archiving) data rather than

dynamically/interactively manipulating and searching them.

43
Perhaps the main disadvantage of optical laser memory

is that it is still in its infancy. While ERIC should

acknowledge its potential future attractiveness, current

reliance on or planning for its availability is not

suggested. Commercial successes have not been numerous and

whether or not it is economically competitive with presently

existing mass memories remains questionable.

Similar statements can be made about the immaturity of

videodisk systems, although they may already have gained

more attention [ORT-3] . Except for some commercial optical

video- disk (television) playback systems, such memories

(for computer mass storage purposes) are not yet available.

However, their projected characteristics are of interest.

Information is stored in various forms (analog and digital)

on a disk which is similar to a phonograph record. Most

such disks then use optical means for writing and reading

the data. Advanced laser or electron-beam techniques are

used to pack the data. For a proposed commercial system

with analog format, a one-micrometer, variable-length pit

(or oblong hole) is used to represent the data [ORT-lj . Up

to six bits can be stored in each pit. There are 32 sectors

per disk and 14,498 bits represented in each sector. Thus,

with 40,000 spiral tracks per side of disk, the total

unformatted capacity could be 10 billion bits. In

projecting to a future 1 terabit videodisk memory, it should

be 10 to 20 times faster in transfer rate than the

previously described 1 terabit optical laser beam memory,

its average access time should be much faster (50-100

milliseconds) , and its cost should be much lower (about 20

microcents/bit) . Note that, given the estimates used in

Section 3. 1.1. 2 on the size and number of reports input to

the ERIC system per month, a 1 terabit memory (1000 billion

bits) could contain roughly 200 months' worth of full-text

data

.

Videodisk systems are being considered as particularly

suitable for use in future computer-controlled information

storage and retrieval systems, especially for mass storage

purposes. For the latter, they do appear to hold more

promise than the competitive market of magnetic disk and

mass tape. However, videodisk is a read-only technology

while disk and tape are erasable. Again, it is considered

to be premature for ERIC to plan for the definite use of

videodisk, although the advantages and prospects should be

recognized and kept in mind.

A better approach is to attend to a more effective

blending and integrative structuring of currently available

computer-based and micrographic technologies, as indicated

in the next section and as further pursued later on in this

report. Among the desirable consequences should be the

preparation for and facilitation of future replacement of

any technologically outdated component of a hvbrid ERIC

system.

44
3.1.4 Computer -Micro film Composite

In order to overcome the sometimes "schizophrenic”

separation of high-volume and low-volume data input

technologies, it makes good sense to consider the

complementing or combining of microfilm and computer

technologies into effectively coupled systems. These could

bring them into a mutually beneficial, closer harmony with

resulting potential for technological cross-fertilization.

The possibilities to be mentioned still adhere to the input

side of ERIC, consistent with the title of this chapter,

although a "second input" step or iteration may seem to be

involved

.

Firstly, the use of computer -output microfilm (COM) has

gained increasing popularity. The data (characters) which

have already been entered somehovr into internal computer

representation are displayed by some technological means

(e.g., CRT) for purposes of direct microfilming. The

worries of poor-quality source items are thereby of course

eliminated. Also, the data, which must already have been

input to the system, can be suitably manipulated or

processed before being stored on film. That is a considerable advantage. Subsequently, you have the same

data storage medium to deal with which was described in

Section 3.1.2. COM should, however, produce uniformly

high-quality results.

The literature includes some interesting descriptions

of COM and its advantages. Examples are a comparison of COM

and CRT with regard to "real-time" services [CMC-1] , how COM

promotes further archival applications [e.g., CMC-2] as well

as possible throw-away non-archival uses [e.g., CMC-3]

.

Appropriate standards already exist [CMC-4]

.

With regard to ERIC, we are happy to report that a limited use of COM, for getting computerized surrogate

resumes from the ERIC Facility directly microfilmed at EDRS,

has recently been initiated. This use can be expanded and

enhanced if adequately powerful computer-based word

processing systems (discussed in Section 3.1.3. 5) are deemed

to be in the future for the ERIC Facility and the

Clear inghouses

.

One further kind of computer-microfilm composite

applicable to data input is the use of a high-resolution

flying spot scanner [e.g., CMC-5] in order to read

alphanumeric data from microfilm directly into the computer.

Use of this approach is as yet far from widespread and its

reliability needs to be improved. Clearly, this presupposes

once again that the source documents which had to be

microfilmed were of adequate quality to enable reliable

reading and character identification. Nevertheless, for a system as heavily dependent on microfilm as is ERIC, the

direct input from selected microfiche to a computer is

45
worthy of future consideration. It could close the loop

between computers and microfilm and allow the latter to be

viewed as a form of computer -compatible storage.

3.1.5 Text-Oriented Input Alternatives

As was promised at the beginning of this "Data Input

and Representation" section, when pertinent characteristics

and criteria were defined, a tabulated comparison of the

major technological data input alternatives is to be made.

Table 2 shows the results. The labelled characteristics and

criteria are consistent with those displayed in Table 1.

The first six listed input alternatives have been

discussed in this section. A couple of others are added for

sake of completeness and are mentioned further in the next

subsection

.

Table 2 does not attempt to exhaustively cover all

possible combinations of the D-V-P characteristics and E

criteria outlined in Table 1. One reason is that, in the

interest of the currently existing ERIC system and the

NIE-ind icated study priorities, the most prevalent

alphanumeric data type (Dl) with two major associated input

volume levels (VI for full text, V2 for surrogates) has been

our primary focus of attention.

Secondly, the indicated (row-wise) profiles of

performance for selected D-V-P combinations are necessarily

only general guidelines and should be interpreted

accordingly. In fact, to substantiate the suggested ratings

the reader should not only peruse pertinent sections of this

report but also some of the cited literature. In addition,

because this study did not involve experimental collection

and analysis of data, the future sponsorship of carefully

planned formal comparisons of selected alternatives for

possible application to ERIC is encouraged.

To aid in reading Table 2, several examples are cited.

The first profile (or row) for ERIC use of microfilm says:

Both high- and low-volume textual and numeric data (and

partially also graphic and diagrammatic information) can be

handled efficiently for purposes of storage and

reproduction, except that the results may vary from good to

poor depending on quality of data input. Notice that the E3

(user satisfaction) criterion is not applicable as yet until

we look at the media in terms of output or presentation to

users (in Section 3.2). The second profile for microfilm,

on the other hand, states that all types of visual data

cannot currently be serviced by microfilm for purposes of

data searching, analysis or transformation. This situation

could change of course if the typographic quality (and hence

microfilm image quality) of input documents were such to

enable automatic reading from microfiche to computerized

form (see Section 3.1.4).

46
(

>.

41 4J >

a. 1C to u % fc. 0£ o o o o

v> a. <:

1. 4-» UJ 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 • 1 1 1 1 1

41 o u Z c <SJ Ou u. Li. (Q s. UJ 1 1 1*4 O O H-f CD CD U. CD 1 CD CD E u. o C9 CD CD CO4- fc. 4> (Q

li. CVJ u. Li. U. li. 4) C3 1 1 as 1 1 CD 1 1 u. u. 1 1 CD CD * CD CD CD CD c Xi Ul

•r» as •r- V»

</> 3 •3 O CL

CD Li. U.

U.

</) o Q.

O 1 1 O 1 CD 1 • CD 1 CD CD

41 S E Li. CD q: ui

V) <n o CL + + + + + + • ou3

a.

CSJ + + + + + + . to o.

4-) oe o. + + + + + + + 4t + + +

<0

4>F fO 3 > • 1 1 1 • 1 • + • • • • > CVJ > + 1 1 + • + 1 + + + + +

4-> o

•3 > + 1 1 • 1 + 1 + + + + e o « « ¥

4c fO • • o ¥ 4t ¥ • 0)o

>1 t- o 4c « • « 4t 4-o « • + • • • 4c •M

Ob

4-> CO • + 1 • • 4c 3

IQ S CSJ + + ¥

¥ 4c + +

4-> + + ¥

¥ 4c + + S

IQ + + ¥ 4t 4c + +

eg

4-> c 3

O. TS

<Q i/1 4J to O 4) e 3 4J •• > o Oi OC V) 4) to E u «/> c M s 1 E w O. 3) 3 a^ 4 O 41 41 <M s. r*> 41 IQ C *A C

It

X »— -M 1“ 4) «Q l/> </) 1« 4) h- •»-

O

C 4-

U IQO

C 4JCC ^ E '4-i 4-M 4- > *3 c O U IQ 3 4J S 3 O 3 O o O L- o u

x: 0)

u u.

u o 0._l E -o o 4J Q. 1. a. c. •FO • 1- o

4J o 4JD 4J <tJ

U E 1 I- c. o </> E O E O *3 3 O “3U

4) t. CLJ= 4J •P*C 4J

O 1- >. o •»- o C 3 0) 3 3 3 t- «t z o o o cc () O h- 3 a. 00 o s: o z; < •s: q; < 0£

47

Table

2.

Selective

Characterization

of

Technological

Data

Input

Alternatives
OCR can be used efficiently (especially for low volume

input) and effectively on textual and numeric types of data

and combinations thereof, but its performance can become

much less effective unless the input is clearly recognizable

(i.e., fugitive documents/surrogates in ERIC cannot be

expected to be read directly) . Because OCR enables the

actual identification and subsequent internal storage of

alphanumer ics, it can serve to support all three types of

purpose. This is also true for simple on-line terminals and

word processing systems. However, in those cases, due to

various computer facilities being accessed and/or

incorporated in the local system, the efficiency factor (in

cost and human labor) tends to go down while the quality of

the results goes up. As stated before, to really appreciate

what mini- or micro-computer based systems can accomplish

for ERIC, one must look beyond the simple ratings of Table 2

and consider them in the full context of potential

improvements of ERIC on the whole.

Tabulations of the kind displayed in Table 2 can

obviously not portray all the factors, issues and arguments

which go into deciding that one technology is perhaps better

than another. Therefore, the reader is encouraged to view

such tables in this report as only generally highlighting

selected investigative results. More importantly, in our

opinion, is their usefulness in providing guidelines to

management via the inherent structure or framework of

factors which, although they could be much more detailed and

refined, should be utilized towards comprehensively

considering technology-based improvements of ERIC.

3.1.6 Non-Textual Alternatives

Analogous to the range of possibilities defined (in

Section 3. 1.3.1) and subsequently discussed for visual data,

especially of the alphanumeric type, we could characterize

available technologies with emphasis on graphic/pictorial

data, or on audio data, or even on tactile data, and finally

on combinations of all types. Some of these are of course

much further developed than others. Regrettably the scope

and length of this study precluded our doing so. However,

in view of some strong interests expressed by

ERIC-assoc iated personnel in making other types of data

(e.g., audiovisual) identifiable and perhaps actually

available through ERIC, such detailed characterizations and

comparisons may be desirable follow-ups to our work.

3.2 Data Output or Presentation

Just as an information system mUst have facilities for

inputting or representing data internally, it must be able

to output the results of data reproduction, manipulation

analysis, transformation or searching for suitable

presentation to the intended users. The various

technological alternatives already described in terms of

48
input capabilities must now lead to and be scrutinized from

the standpoint of interfacing or interaction with people.

3.2.1

Output Characteristics and Criteria

i Once the data have been input or copied into a particular storage medium, and after perhaps being variously

processed therein depending on the power and capabilities of

the system involved, we must ask how the available

technology can serve to get user-desired data (or

information) out of the system in a form or on a medium that

is amenable to satisfactory human use. Analogous to what we

did for input data, we must therefore define data output

again with regard to distinguishing characteristics and

appropriate criteria for general assessment of performance.

3. 2. 1.1 Data Types

Since visual as well as possibly audio and even tactile

data (and combinations thereof) are of interest to people on

system input, it stands to reason that the same types of

data are to be output. The data themselves may have been

repackaged or modified, but their typology remains the same

Without full repetition, we can therefore again use the

definitions (of Dl, D2, D3, and D4) made in Section 3. 1.1.1

and outlined in Table 1.

3. 2. 1.2 Output Quantities

The volume levels of data output should however be

treated somewhat differently than those on input. If we are

interested in user-oriented technology application to ERIC

and similar systems, we must design to meet the data volume

levels which are likely to be wanted or which can be

assimilated by the data users. This means that even if the

full text of a report had been input to the system, the user

may only wish to see one line, one paragraph, one page, the

bibliographic citation, or some data unit resulting from a search, an analysis or a transformation of the text.

Finally, the user may actually want to see and read the

whole document.

Given this kind of quantitative view of what ERIC users

might want to get our of the system, where our emphasis is

again on visual data, the following categorization is

reasonable

:

Ql. Single- or Multi-Line Quantity (up to a Paragraph)

Q2. Single- or Multi-Paragraph Quantity (up

to a Page)

Q3. Single-Page Quantity (including Graphs,

Diagrams)

49
Q4. Multi-Page Quantity (up to and including Full

Text)

3. 2. 1.3 User Purposes

On the input side, we asked about the purposes of the

data once they had been read into some technological storage

medium, possibly in conjunction with some data processing

capabilities. Those purposes were obviously defined in

anticipation of what the users might want to do with the

data on the output side. Notice that the user purpose can

be separated out from the user- desired output quantity

(previous section) although those two characteristics may be

very much related.

Starting in the 1960 's and moving through the 1970 's,

gradually but significantly increasing attention has been

paid by information and computer scientists to user needs

and preferences in relation to information systems. The

pertinent literature is too large to be adequately treated

here. Some user-oriented evaluation studies are included in

the EVA category of the bibliography. Other samples are

listed in the USI category, representative of user-oriented

work conducted under the sponsorship of ASIS (e.g., USI-1

and 2), ACM (e.g., USI-3) and NBS (e.g., USI-4 and 5).

These studies primarily focussed on user interaction with

computer-based information systems. But user-oriented

concerns about interfacing with other technologies are also

evident in the literature (see MFF category)

.

So what kinds of purposes may users have in mind in

attempting to take advantage of an information system like

ERIC? Towards the end of characterizing the technological

alternatives in this report, they can be categorized as

follows (without implying any judgement on the relative

mer its) ;

Ul. Obtaining Verbatim Copy of Data Unit

(1) Entire Unit (full text, surrogate, graph)

(2) Subset or Extract of Unit

U2. Obtaining Selected Search/Analysis Results

U3. Obtaining Transfer med /Mod i f ied Image of (Sub) Unit

U4. Getting a Cursory View of Data (Browsing)

It must be noted that we are not making distinctions

here between end and intermediary users (or information

specialists), between regular and occasional users, between

experienced and novice users, and with regard to other

possible taxonomies. In detailed system design, such

distinctions should be taken into account. For purposes of

50
Table 3, Characteristics and Criteria for Investigating

Data Output Technology

DATA OUTPUT CHARACTERISTICS: Label

Type of Data

Visual Data D1

Textual or Alphanumeric Did)

Full Text D1 (1) (a)

Surrogate Did) (b)

Statistical or Numeric Dl(2)

Graphic, Diagrammatic, Pictorial Dl(3)

Combination of above Dl(4)

Audio Data D2

Tactile Data D3

' Combinations of above D4

Output Quantity

Single- or Multi-Line (up to Paragraph) Q1

Single- or Multi-Paragraph (up to Page) Q2

Single Page (or Graph, Diagram, Picture) Q3

Multi-Page (up to/including Full Text) Q4

User Purpose

Obtaining Verbatim Copy of Data Unit U1

Entire Unit (Full Text, Surrogate, Graph) Uld)

Subset or Extract of Unit Ul(2)

Obtaining Selected Search/Analysis Results U2

Obtaining Transformed/Modified (Sub) Unit U3

Getting Cursory View of Data (Browsing) U4

OUTPUT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Efficiency El

I/O Processing Rate Eld)

I/O Processing Cost El (2)

Effectiveness E2

Quality of Output (w.r.t. Purpose)

Synergism E3

User Satisfaction

51
this study, however, all of the above can be considered as

applicable to all types of direct users, although to

differing extents.

3. 2. 1.4 Performance Criteria

To assess prospective performance levels for various

technological output alternatives, it is again possible for

us to use the same criteria employed on the input side.

These were defined to be efficiency (El) , effectiveness (E2)

and synergism (E3) criteria, as discussed in Section 3. 1.1.4

and outlined in Table 1.

Although a thorough, formal system evaluation would

require treatment of a number of additional questions

pertaining to each of the three general criteria, our study

scope limits us to the selected few. Also, a marked change

of emphasis, from data input to data output, should be

noted: While synergism (E3) was practically ignored on the

input side (see right-most column of Table 2) , it should

become very prominent in user-oriented consideration of

output technology.

3. 2. 1.5 Framework of Factors

With much more brevity, we can now summarize the

characteristics and criteria to be referenced in the

following discussions of technological alternatives for

providing user-oriented output from ERIC and similar

systems. This is analogous to what was done in Section

3. 1.1. 5. Table 3 should be self-explanatory.

3.2.2 Microfilm and Fiche

ERIC does not only use micrographics for purposes of

"archival" storage, which may connote to the uninformed

person a relatively nonuser-oriented, dusty-shelf storage of

information for historical interest. In fact, the interest

is in both current awareness and retroactive uses of

high-quality, clean microfiche by the many people in the

educational community. So what are the types of uses of

microfilm, and what do users seem to think about it as an

output medium?

3. 2. 2.1 Dependence on Input

Unlike information systems in which the data, upon

input, can be flexibly modified and even corrected or

improved, the very nature of microfilm is that the quality

of the output is directly and intimately dependent on the

quality of the input (document and/or filming process) . It

should be pointed out that some selective

modification/correction of microfiche contents is

technologically possible but unlikely to be useful for

overcoming the general problems with fugitive documents in

52
the ERIC system.

3. 2. 2. 2 Range of Uses

Once a microfilm image of some input data has been

produced, regardless of whether the microfiche is brand new

or selected from previous storage, what are users able to do

with it? We can relate this question to the user purposes

identified in Table 3 as follows:

1. The user can read the entire contents or a selected

part of the microfiche (Ul)

.

I 2. The user can simply browse through all or part of

it (U4).

3. The user can get a paper copy of all or some of the

pages on the fiche (again ui)

.

4. The user can have the microfilm itself reproduced

(also interpreted under purpose Ul)

.

In addition, when a single microfiche is

viewed as part of a physical collection of

microfiche (not an indexed, computerized surrogate

file)

,

5. The user may be able to access a physical ordered

and/or controlled microfiche collection based on a limited search capability to identify (e.g.,

specifically numbered) fiche (under U2)

.

The search is "limited” in that detailed character- or

word-oriented analyses (U2) as well as data transformations

(U3) are not possible using microfiche (unless and until

input documents and image quality enable direct reading of

the textual data from microfiche to computer storage)

.

The next several subsections discuss the

above- indicated uses of microfiche in more depth. Some of

the ERIC-related problems with technological output devices

and some ERIC staff opinions about them are thereby shared.

3. 2. 2.

3

Reading and Browsing

The reading or browsing through a visual information

medium can be an intensely important and exciting human

activity. This should be supported and enhanced with useroriented technology including, in the ERIC case, properly

formatted microfiche (or other kinds of microforms) with

pages arranged for natural and convenient user operation.

But we shall not dwell on such fine-tuning here. Our

priority concern with microfilm-based output is reader

quality in general.

!

53
Even if EDRS has the most beautiful, state-of-the-art

microfilming technology installed and properly utilized, and

assuming that an input document is of high typographic

quality, ERIC users will not be satisfactorily served if the

microfilm reading devices available in information centers

or user organizations are of inadequate quality. Secondly,

if those devices should be good enough but the users are

untrained, uninformed or even unwilling to use them

effectively, microfiche reading and browsing can also be a frustrating, disillusioning experience. And who tends to

get blamed? Central ERIC, or EDRS, or microfilm technology

in general.

Again, as has been stated before, the technology is or

surely can be good enough. In spite of the good intentions

of those advocating inexpensive microfilm readers, use of

better quality (and probably more costly) readers should be

encouraged and promoted. We know both how to design and

develop better readers as well as how to evaluate and select

them [MFF-20 and 21] . Several persons associated with ERIC

have told us: The problem is that the educational (and

associated scholarly) communities are relative paupers,

compared with other segments of society. Hence, the

equipment manufacturers find them comparatively unattractive

(financially) as a market. This combination of factors

contributes to the availability and excessive use of

"cheapy" readers which tend to counteract sincere efforts

made by ERIC on other parts of the system.

Secondly, the users must of course not only be

motivated to use ERIC microfiche but also be trained in its

use. Some people told us that the

"hold-the-f iche-before-the-window" syndrome still exists,

very unfortunately. While that may sound exaggerated, it is

true that, especially for those in the education community

who may not be technology-oriented or who even have an

aversion to it, lack of training in the use of microfiche

readers (compounded by inexpensive, low-quality readers)

will certainly not advance the objectives of ERIC or enhance

its reputation.

An ironic byproduct of the above is that many users,

who are actually conditioned to very poor microfilm readers

and reading habits, don't know that things could be

significantly better. They may, therefore, be

inappropriately counted as so-called satisfied users or,

alternatively, be "turned off" to microfiche use after a succession of unhappy experiences.

3. 2. 2.

4

Paper Copy Production

ERIC users who want to get a paper copy of a report

produced from microfiche can do so by either ordering it

from EDRS or by employing miscellaneous local equipment

(e.g., microfiche reader/pr inters) if available. The latter

54
alternative is generally not very satisfactory, largely for

reasons similar to above-mentioned low-quality equipment for

reading. But it is considered better than nothing when a selected paper copy is needed.

The former alternative (ordering from EDRS) is likely

to take more time but will normally produce better results.

The various problems with microfiche production, already

discussed in conjunction with data input (Section 3.1.2),

naturally come into play. They will not be repeated here.

It should be noted, however, that we found general

satisfaction expressed on our ERIC-associated site visits as

far as paper copy service from EDRS is concerned. This is

particularly true for more recently entered documents and in

spite of the fact that in a high-volume production shop

individualized attention to problem pages is difficult to

achieve. Those cases which involve complaints and/or

requests for better copy generally seem to be handled

responsively by EDRS.

The above is not to suggest that paper copy production

from microfilm results in uniformly good results.

Poor-quality fugitive documents remain a fact of life in the

current ERIC system. The Reproducibility Guidelines

discussed in Section 3.1.2. 8 are necessary, although some

people feel they are too restrictive. In addition, what may

be worst as far as present paper copy users are concerned is

the uncertainty as to why a copy is almost illegible or

inexplicably tiny in print. Explicit, individualized

identification of the source of such problems (which EDRS

now records in a daily diary) would go a long way towards

alleviating user complaints. Current, more general

disclaimers [see MFF-12] seen by users are interpreted by

some people as routine cover-ups.

3.2.2.

5

Duplication of Fiche

Users of microfiche may also want to have duplicates of

microfiche made, for very selective purposes or for

developing separate subcollections of fiche. The main

technology-related problem associated with such duplication

involves the further deterioration of image quality in going

from one microfiche generation to another. This is

substantially dependent on what kind of film master is used.

Silver is better than vesicular for duplication purposes.

EDRS uses silver [MFF-10] , but only a small set of

subscribing customers order and receive silver microfiche.

All others get the vesicular. The latter may be quite

adequate, especially if the vesicular is not used for

further microfiche duplication [MFF-12] . Silver may or may

not be the right choice for customers, depending upon how

carefully and for what purpose they use it. To copy (i.e.,

duplicate) microfiche it may be desirable. However, for

that case the diazo alternative might also be considered.

55
In any case, the users should be properly informed and

then have the choice (assuming they are willing to pay for

it) . The sensitivity of certain users to this issue v;as evidenced in a false alarm editorial notice [MFF-22] which

claimed that ERIC was henceforth only going to provide

vesicular masters. In view of previously indicated problems

with duplicating from vesicular, the writer projected the

highly regrettable expectation of having to "make do with

diazo duplicates made from earlier generation vesicular

masters" when the last one that had been supplied "had about

as much contrast as a grey cat on a foggy night." That's a rather strong quote and hopefully was overstated (and led to

a satisfactory resolution) . But, upon checking on the claim

about loss of the silver option, we were assured by ERIC

that it is absolutely false [see also MFF-12]

3.2. 2.

Searching a Fiche Collection

Most microfiche collections are stored and searched

manually. But, by means of various types of color codings,

compact shelvings, tub files and other special

physical/logical arrangements, more semi-automatic

mechanical and electronic filing systems are being

implemented. Such aids (e.g., with selectively lighted,

subject categorized boxes) can also be used for semi-manual

compilation and distribution of microfiche based on standing

user profiles of interest.

As microforms become more closely coupled with

computerized information systems, chances are that their

search will become increasingly computer-controlled and

consequently more automated. This prospect will be

reiterated later (in Section 3.2.4).

3.2.2.

Future Prospects

The one prospect just mentioned above, namely greater

automation of microfiche collections , is very likely to

influence and also enhance the micrographic-based,

user-oriented output of the future. This is consistent with

what we stated about future micrographic storage in Section

3.1.2.10. Color fiche is already available and is nice to

have from the user's standpoint. While it is likely to

become more prominent, it will probably remain unnecessary

for ERIC, until or unless ERIC inputs more special

graphic/pictorial data in color. In addition, it is likely

that a greater variety of microforms (including ultrafiche)

will be designed and employed, both in the interests of

computer-associated efficiency and of user-oriented

effectiveness and synergism.

3.2.3 Computer-Based Means

56
The computer-based alternatives (to microfiche) which

may be available to ERIC users for getting information out

of ERIC, whether directly or through some intermediary

information specialists, require a brief look at the typical

distinctions made. These depend heavily on the output

characteristics previously defined and listed in Table 3.

3. 2. 3.1 On-Line vs. Off-Line

The term "on-line" is usually employed to refer to an

interactive, quick-response connection between a user and a computer and also between a computer terminal (perhaps

"intelligent") and a computer. The object computer in

question is normally being thought of as timeshared or

multiprogrammed . Hence a user or local (smaller) computer

or terminal communicating with it is imposing demands which

may cause deterioration of the services experienced by other

simultaneous users (whether human or otherwise)

Nevertheless, on-line searching (e.g., of ERIC databases)

has been found to be steadily gaining in popularity [EVA-3]

"Off-line," on the other hand, connotes doing your own

thing locally, using perhaps a special mini- or microbased

system, without bothering some other resource computer which

may be located at an organizationally centralized site.

That does, however, no’t preclude the possibility of going

on-line when and if necessary, assuming the communication

facilities exists.

3. 2. 3.

Interactive vs. Batch

Another distinction involves a human user working in

the interactive, fast-response mode with a computer, as

opposed to the batch mode. The latter is typically

associated with a batch of punched cards (maybe consisting

of user jobs) being read en masse into a card reader, with

processing results to be output on a printer at possibly

variable (non-interactive) intervals of time. A hybrid

combination of the two modes is also possible (e.g,

interactive request and batch output)

Notice that a user can "interact" with a remotely

located resource computer as well as a relatively limited

local standalone system, such as a word processor. The user

may be on-line to a smaller system while that same system

may be either off-line or on-line relative to some other

computer it can be connected to. This will have a bearing

on our networking and distributed processing considerations

later on. •'

At this point of the report, we are interested in

characterizing data output with regard to usage modes.

Hence, as far as output quantity is concerned (see Table 3),

users are unlikely to want or be allowed to read much more

(for purposes Ul, U2, and U3) than relatively low-volume

57
output (Qlf Q2, Q3) while they are in the interactive mode.

Perhaps if they have a suitable output medium (see next

section) , they could quickly browse (U4) through a longer

text (Q4) . However, if they are on-line with an interactive

terminal to a multi-user system, and if they want a printed

copy of a document, they are usually asked to request a batch-oriented, high-speed printout. This further confirms

the previously mentioned data volume gap. The next two

sections describe the available technological output and

storage devices used to accommodate the different volumes

for different purposes.

3. 2. 3. 3 Hard vs. Soft Copy

Interactive terminals basically come in two types: the

hard-copy (or paper-copy) terminal [OLT-2] producing printed

output and the soft-copy terminal producing visual (CRT

[OLT-3] or plasma [OLT-6]) display. The asynchronously

communicating hard-copy terminals are usually like

typewriters and their printout rate is slow. The soft-copy

variety (with associated keyboard and perhaps other special

input devices) may range from slow to rather fast output,

depending on whether it is strictly alphanumeric or fully

graphic or something in between. The latter is of course

subject to how much intelligence, including synchronous

communication capability, might be built in.

Batch terminals are hard-copy devices normally

associated with high-speed printers. Other facilities can

be added and they may in fact be components of local

computer systems. Considerable emphasis is placed on

providing acceptably high-speed, synchronous communication

lines.

An on-line searcher (with purpose U2) of the ERIC data

base, accessing one of the commercially available systems

[e.g., USI-7] is, therefore, likely to get brief responses

(Ql and Q2) and reasonably short lists of bibliographic

citations (Q3 and Q4) printed on a hard-copy or displayed on

a soft-copy, interactive terminal. For the latter,

equipment also exists to get the current "soft" page

(alphanumeric/graphic) reproduced in hard-copy. However, a printout of more extensive length (e.g., the responsive

abstracts) should be obtained via some (hard copy) batch

terminal. Among the print technologies which are

particularly prominent in current word processing systems

are the inkjet, the laser, and the magnetic high-speed

printers

3.2. 3.4 Peripheral Storage

But what if the user does not wish to visually read or

browse through the data right now (on either hard-copy or

soft-copy terminal)? What if the data are to be somehow

obtained, from a remote or local source, and stored on a

58
I computer -compatible medium for later search/analysis (U2) or

transformation (U3) or something else?

In this context, it is reasonable to consider various

types of peripheral storage as user-desired alternatives (to

above-described hard- or soft-copy) for data output from

information systems. We are again led to inquire about lowand high-capacity peripheral memories, as we did in Section

3.1.3. 7. But now our focus is necessarily on the relatively

low-capacity storage.

Besides having the conventional disk and tape, the

development of intelligent terminals and word processing

systems has brought with it a number of attractive

peripheral storage devices. These include cassettes,

cartridges and various diskettes. Of special interest to

prospective use of word processing systems in the ERIC

network is the availability of floppy disks.

Floppy disk is the relatively low-capacity, low-cost

1, answer to block-random-access storage for small computer

systems [ORT-1] . It is like a large, circular piece of

magnetic tape coated with oxide mylar. Particularly

suitable applications include data entry systems,

intelligent terminals and remote batch terminals, as

discussed above. A typical single-density floppy disk has

an unformatted capacity of 3.2 megabits, a transfer rate of

.25 megabits/sec., an access time of about 200 milliseconds

and a price of 19 millicent per bit. The floppy is easily

filed and accessed but must be carefully handled. It has

some remaining disadvantages (like magnetic tape), including

difficulties with incompatibility, or lack of standards,

among different manufacturers. The National Bureau of

Standards is taking initiatives to address that problem.

3.2.3.

5

Remote vs. Local Search

Local accessibility has been consistently found to be

one of the most user-desired features in information systems

[EVA-3] . Among the conventional alternatives, the local

library and its volumes of RIE and CUE and other hard-copy

products have been and remain locally accessible; the same

can be said about an in-house ERIC microfiche collection.

But many people in the educational community presently do

not have such libraries and resources in their immediate

vicinity.

The current design of the ERIC system, with its two

major technology-based alternatives to getting information

from the ERIC data bases, has generally promoted a local

manual search leading to microfiche and paper copy) and a remote search for bibliographic citations. Both of these

searches may actually be done by intermediaries in regional

information centers, thereby removing the end user from

personal, local accessibility as such. As is well known.

59
there are differences of opinion on whether that is good or

bad

.

Assuming that we interpret the end user's strong

preference for local accessibility to be independent of

whether he/she does the searching personally or through a (locally available) intermediate specialist, then we must

ask what options ERIC has to satisfy that user preference.

Given the tremendous advancements in computer /communications

networking, "local accessibility" to one or more complete

ERIC data bases obviously is already being provided to large

numbers of users. That is true even though the computer

systems involved are remotely located, perhaps at the other

end of the country. So, to be locally accessible does not

necessarily rule out remote searching via a local terminal.

What may rule it out, however, for many present and

potential ERIC users is the cost of doing on-line searching

of remotely located systems, especially during hours

convenient to the users.

One possible alternative to consider, therefore, is the

use of minicomputer-based systems with floppy disks in

reasonably local information centers for purposes of local

searching of at least selected segments of the ERIC

surrogate database. An "all-inclusive" system could be

searched periodically or on request, according to the

general interest profile of each local user organization or

group, and the resulting file segment/partition could be

transmitted or delivered (preferably via inexpensive,

night-time communication facilities) to each local

mini-center for subsequent floppy disk-based searching.

The above suggestion of a type of distributed data base

application in ERIC is of course contingent on the ability

to segment or partition the files in an effective manner.

Some ERIC-associated people told us that it definitely can

be done; others claimed that it is impossible because ERIC

users always want access to the entire database. According

to Havelock [EVA-3] no reasonable approach to partitioning

has as yet been found. But if we can find such an approach

(and we tend to think that it should be possible) , the

computer /communications technology is clearly available to

support it.

3.2.4 Computer-Micrographics Composite

Some people have viewed the availability of on-line

terminals for interactive searching as posing a distinct

challenge to micrographics. An interesting comparison of

the pros and cons of both has been published [CMC-6]

.

Others have decided, on the other hand, to come up with a suitable combination or integration of the two technologies

involved [CMC-7, 8, 9].

60
As already suggested in Section 3.1.4 for data input,

eric's consideration of a more effective coupling of

computers and micrographics is to be encouraged. This now

not only means computer -output microfilm (COM) but also the

possibility of combining a localized computer search

capability (previous section) with computer-controlled

retrieval from a microfiche collection (Section 3. 2. 2. 6).

To enhance the user-oriented search/display interface even

further, an integration of the use of a CRT-based terminal

for on-line searching and the use of that same video

terminal for microfiche image display is also possible.

3.2.5 Text-Oriented Output Alternatives

Analogous to what was done for text-oriented input in

Section 3.1.5, the alternatives for output can now be

high-lighted and broadly compared in tabular form. Table 4

displays the results.

Again, the table must be properly qualified. Depending

on the backup details, found in this report and in the

general literature, there is certainly room for disagreement

on the particular performance indicators. The first six

"output" alternatives were discussed previously. In each

case, there are one or more characteristic profiles pointed

out. For example, microfiche used for visual data output

(of all kinds, Dl) to users, may be cost-effective (El (2))

for purposes of looking at exact copies of the entire data

unit (Ul) , even though it may take time to get at it (El(l))

and whether or not the user will be happy with the output

quality (E2, E3) is questionable. On the other hand,

microfiche cannot be used for getting selective subsets of

the data (other than full pages) and it may or may not be

effective for purposes of browsing.

Both hard- and soft-copy terminals are shown to be good

for small-quantity output, including output of computerized

search/analysis results (U2) , although they may be

relatively costly. Large-volume printouts (Q4) , however,

are better left for higher-speed, batch printers.

Peripheral storage devices (e.g., floppy disks) are seen as

suitable for intermediate output/storage of most kinds of

visual data, as long as the quantity (Q4) is not

overwhelming. Subsequently, it may of course be possible

for the user to access those same stored data from a hardor soft-copy terminal.

3.2.6 Non-Textual Alternatives

More alternatives, e.g., full graphics terminals, can

be easily added to Table 4 for consideration, subject to

ERIC interests in expanding its emphasis on visual,

non-textual data. The audio and audiovisual entries are

included for sake of completeness. They are to remind the

reader of the broader perspective (especially in education)

61
>* « 1 • 4> Q. ^40U oo a Q. a. o» LU u. 4. lu u.

4/)

X Ol CO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 < UJ O 1 1 O 1 o u. 1 L9 C3 1 L3 O 1 3 3 o u

u o a. a. e z CM 1 1 40 UJ o ^ ^ o u. *-« 13 ta

— C3 <3 U. 19 19 3 Ec o o u w

01 40 a. u. CM

44 •WK> u. o. U. U. LU U. X. o» * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c UJ (3 1 1 O 1 O u. 1 C3 C3 1 (3 O Ll. 19 19 3 (3

i/> 3 o a. a.

4/> 5 a, 1 0) o E o > • O 1 CS u. 1 (3

O 1 C3 C3 U. 3 3 3 CK (J

.. 3 « 4 4 4 4

ro o 3 4 4 4 4

Q.3 CM

a. 3 « 4 4 4 4

L.0;

M •« 4 4 4 4

4/) 3 pe « « 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 >c

40 3

o- 4* •4 4 1 4 1 • 4 1 4 4 4 1 4 4

4->

m 3 cr 4 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 a3 CM o o 4 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 4 4

*oc

40 o 4 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 4 4 2 * ft ft •

r> • 0 o -ft ft ft 0 4)A

>1 CM

hO ft ft ft • ft ft o 4 *44 • • • ft

4-1 ro 4 -44 • • • • ft : 40 o CM 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4-4 1 s 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 c>

r- 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 oi

4-»

C 3 to U CL U

40 >» 4-> 4) <o u 4 u On 3 • • > 4> a o «/5 «o to 3.

2^ E >» K>

O 1 E u 4) 3 to 4 o 4J ^ 4J Ql a. 5 u ^ u ^ 4J 3. to •»“ X 4< X 4J O 4J O c U 4J 4i o> •*- £ t/> •*- O Q c 4- U c o c o <o 4J JZ ^ 4-> 4- 4-1 E > E i. O x: ^ 4> Q. ^ 3 O o O V o *o £ 4 u u. •J *p ^ 4» Q u c f- u a O. U ••- 4-» c W V

4J 1 '•’ 1 u 1 4- »— 4-4 -ru o • g

u "O to *3 3 C 40 C o < 40 U 4J 4» 4J o — c 3 >» 3 O

X < 1 z o O OO OC Q. O. t/1

w

u z < < t/) < iA

S’

s.o<4> CM0» 4)

62

'1

Table 4

Selective

Characterization

of

Technological

Data

Output

Alternatives
which should precipitate ever increasing attention to the

powerful, multisensory information processing capabilities

of human beings. _

‘

:~[0 -r[r n -"T.’C

»i ^ 1 M -I :

•

J

-Jfc * -. I - •fm *

rj •. -i -

• ‘ • 'ft,

'• 3

'-'-: .

|:.v • "t-

•

'

• •*5

»

>• ’ e

’ - j- noo-

. * iMpn#. V»

-jo-v •

’ •*»"* *. ,-v •

. fJcf<r«hoi '

*‘r-; -'fo- 't*; iTC ti- •• R^fi «>ii

^ ^ *4 M Ar * • - ''c:- 3r,

' ' 5^‘VQM - - ''

?'.E ( 3^1: l:.f * •'

1 fiMBMilCVC. f A -’* •

'

' r « . • i» " e" -.

. r

* *

'

,

*

: S>»1: '

' : .

U^PH^C

r s ^ t'VcjO- ! .

63

kJ' /
4. TOTAL SYSTEM-ORIENTED CONSIDERATIONS

After having considered the top-priority technological

components of ERIC, we must now attempt to put the pieces

together in the context of a total, unified system. In

Section 3.1, the function of data input or representation

was addressed with respect to alternative technological

implementations but without regard to how any one such

functional site or node (in the ERIC "network”) may relate

to either similar or different functional activities carried

out elsewhere in ERIC. Likewise, in Section 3.2, the

function of data output or presentation was discussed.

Again, aside from certain dependencies on the input media,

little was said about how the various instantiations of the

data output/presentation function relate to each other and

to other parts or functions of ERIC.

Our ultimate objective should of course be the

technology-facilitated service to current and potential ERIC

users in the educational community. By

distributed nature of the latter, this

to where the users are. Given the

computer /communications technology

,

Havelock-cited indication [EVA-3] of

accessibility," the above-stated

interpreted to require: networking

technology) of the various present/prospective technological

components of ERIC for purposes of enabling selected kinds

of distributed processing in and distributed access to what

could then be correctly called an ERIC network.

the geographically

means "reaching out"

state-of-the-art of

coupled with the

user-desired "local

objective can be

(via communications

This section is to give an overview of what is involved

in networking and distributed processing. It also

identifies the resultant advantages to be gained, in terms

of both user interaction with such an ERIC network as well

as associated interstaff communication and collaboration.

4.1 Interconnection of Components

Why interconnect the technological and functional

components of a large information system with

telecommunications facilities? Are the mail service and the

occasional personal telephone conversations together with

selected on-line sessions with a remotely located

computerized search system not adequate to connect the parts

of the nationwide information service and to support the

needs of its staff and users?

The answer must depend on what ERIC wants to accomplish

with the system and how well it is to perform, especially to

be attractive to users. A brief analogy (although only

partly applicable to ERIC) can be drawn with two different

networks that have been attempted under the auspices of

EDUCOM. Both were to enable nationwide sharing of

computer-based resources. The first, implemented in the

64
late 1960 'e, was called the Educational Information Network

(EIN) . It was based on a catalogue of available sharable

softv;are and transmittal of computer programs through the

U.S. mails, after appropriate telephone-based inquiry and

coordination. EIN failed dismally. Users v;ere not

attracted to it [CAN-1] . Lack of easy, direct accessibility

to the available resources was probably a major factor.

In marked contrast, the more recent EDUNET effort

[CAN-2], which provides for the sharing of computer-based

resources through direct user access via various

comm.unication networks, appears to be gaining in popularity

and viability.

4.1.1 Characteristics and Criteria

The theme of this entire system-oriented section is

communication or, more specifically, telecommunication

between the components of a large information system. But,

as is seen belov/, that dees not only m.ean the

interconnection of technological parts such as computers and

com.puter terminals. It also can mean the more effective,

logical interlinking of operational staff/management

personnel associated with the "interconnected system" ns

well as the enhanced interaction of the users v;ith that

system.

I Before addressing the concepts and techniques of

"networking" and "distributed processing" in the next two

subsections, v;e should again ask two types of questions,

analogous to what v;e did for the component-oriented

considerations of data input and output:

1. What are the characteristics of the required or

desired "interconnectedness" of the information

system of interest, which should have a determining

influence on the technological networking and

distributed processing alternatives to be

suggested?

2. What are the criteria for deciding on performance

of those technological alternatives?

This total system-oriented characterization now becomes

considerably more complex than for any selected system

component. Nevertheless it can be carried out in an

analogous manner with results being sim.ilar at least in

topical structure to those portrayed in Tables J and 3.

Because this area was not indicated by ITIE to be of hi^gh

priority interest in our particular study, v/e shall only

sketch the relevant items.

65
Firstly, the type of data to be communicated between or

among component parts must be identified. As was true

earlier in this report, the transmission of alphanumeric,

"visual" data represents the most prevalent need in the

current ERIC system. Given that fact, we must again inquire

about data volume or quantity, that is, how much data is to

be transmitted from one part of ERIC to another. Do the

data involve short, perhaps sporadic messages (e.g. for

interactive computer use) or large, bulk transmission (e.q.

in file transfer) or some combination thereof? Maybe even

facsimile transmission (discussed in Section 4.1.2) should

be possible. Data volume requirements for any given link

between two ERIC nodes (e.g. two clearinghouses) will of

course influence the capacity of the required communication

line. This determination is confounded further when that

same link is included in a "structure" of interconnections

(to be described in the networking section below) which

provides for shared use by some or all other nodes in ERIC.

Thus the decision on what level of data transmission

capacity (or corresponding bit transfer rate) is needed on

any link must be based on and justified by the collective

needs of all components of the ERIC system.

Thirdly, besides data type and data transmission

volume, we must again characterize the purposes of the data

communications (and hence the interconnection of ERIC

components by telecommunications facilities) . This can be

done by stratifying people interacting with the technology

into at least three categories: ERIC users, ERIC supporting

staff and ERIC management.

The information-seeking purposes of users remain as

previously described with regard to any particular output

device (see Table 3). However, to emphasize the potential

advantages of interconnection, the list might be

supplemented with such facilitating purposes as "getting

on-line help or direction," e.g. from an ERIC staff member.

The purposes of the staff members, on the other hand, must

include the execution of established functional activities

(e.g. input and transmission of document surrogates to the

ERIC Facility), specialized local processing, maintenance of

appropriate statistics, communication of policy and

procedural changes to other ERIC nodes, operational

collaboration among nodes, assistance to users and

responsiveness to management. Finally, high-level

management concerns not only subsume the user and staff

purposes but also regard the all-encompassing question of

whether the benefits (to users and also staff) of ERIC

interconnection are worth the potential cost.

The latter leads us also to consider total

systems-or iented per f ormance cr iter ia . Again we can do this

with respect to efficiency, effectiveness and synergism

factors. Depending on whether a user, a staff member or a manager is looking at ERIC performance, the interpretation

66
I

of (or specific emphasis in) the efficiency-effectiveness-synergism profile is different. Top priority for

management (in general) tends to be efficiency, i.e. how

much is being done at what cost? Some of the important

features pertaining to staff and users are discussed in

Sections 4.2 and 4.3 respectively.

4.1.2 Networking

Having loosely talked about interconnecting ERIC

components, we can formalize it somewhat by discussing, in

summary form, the need to carry out networking.

"Networking" is variously defined to be the art or, if more

rigorously intended,

interfacing a set

especially computers

purposes of more

information-dependent

the process of interconnecting or

of component systems and devices,

and communications facilities, for

effective accomplishment of some

application (s) . The result, namely a computer communications network, then becomes the composite

of' the different technological parts [CAN-3] , with the data

(or bits) flowing over the installed communication lines

possibly using a number of different media [CAN-4]

.

Networking technology, which subsumes communications

technology, is too extensive and complex to be described in

detail in this report. Only the major features with

possible relevance to ERIC deliberations are highlighted. A

1976 structured bibliography [CAN-5] is available to guide

the interested reader into the sizable, ever-increasing body

of networking literature. A series of useful, specialized

reports has also been produced by the National Bureau of

Standards [e.g. CAN-6, 7 and 8]. In addition, various

networking conferences and symposia [e.g. CAN-9] are

sponsored every year to keep the public informed of the

state-of-the-art

.

As far as applicability of networking technology to

ERIC is concerned, a broad approach to answering the

question of whether and in what general form a true

telecommunications-based ERIC network should be considered

is to discuss the following scenario of "screening" steps:

1. On national-level network communication : What data

transmission volumes characterize current

relationships or interactions between ERIC nodes on

a pairwise basis (e.g. clearinghouse to ERIC

Facility or clearinghouse to clearinghouse)? What

might be the projections on future data flow over

those same links if the higher-volume more userand staff-oriented technology-based capabilities

discussed in this report should be made available

in ERIC?

67
2.

On regional- level network communication ; To

emphasize the major concern of ERIC, namely the

enabling of localized or regionalized access to

ERIC resources by groups of users in various remote

educational communities, the same question (as in

1. above) is asked but at a hierarchically lower

level. The users here might have a simple terminal

in the local school library or, if more fortunate,

a mini-based word processor with floppy disk, and

they might regard the nearest clearinghouse or

regional information center as the networking hub

to tie into (if that's possible).

3.

On network structure ; If the current and projected

data flow volumes should be adequately high,

justifying the possible use of one or more of the

available offerings in terms of communications

capacity (or bandwidth) , then the configuration of

the interconnections between the ERIC nodes, or the

ERIC network structure, has to be carefully

selected

.

4.

On network control : In addition to various kinds

of control (e.g. of data flow and communication

errors) dependent on available technological

implementation, management-level control must also

be instituted in (or superimposed on) the ERIC

network. The operational mechanism(s) for such

control would have to be properly blended into the

network structure mentioned above.

5.

On networking philosophy ; Beyond the above, it is

desirable to find a management philosophy which

perceives and wishes to facilitate the existing

dependencies among ERIC nodes and which, therefore,

is favorably inclined towards reaping the potential

benefits of networking. Needless to say,

reasonable justification in terms of adequately

high volumes of current or projected data transfer

between nodes should be prerequisite. But there

may be cost trade-offs depending on the type of

communication line or service procured.

The above scenario of five screening steps should be

elaborated on a little further. The first two essentially

ask whether the current/ projected data flow levels in ERIC

are adequate to justify telecommunications- based

networking. Given reliable estimates of anticipated data

flow volumes, one could then review the considerable

assortment of communication techniques and services and

select those most suitable and cost-effective. The range of

possibilities includes establishing ordinary point-to-point

dial-up lines between various ERIC nodes (clearinghouses,

information centers, user organizations); or higher68
quality conditioned leased voice-grade lines (especially

among clearinghouses, the ERIC Facility, EdrS etc.) with the

possibility of sharing those lines (e.g. via multiplexing);

or interconnections via one of the available value-added

networks or VANs (see CAN-6); or various combinations of

the above depending on ERIC operational requirements,

traffic patterns and of course associated cost.

Assuming that an objective study producing careful

projections on future ERIC activities and missions in the

educational community would lead to adequate justification

for networking (and we feel that it would) , then the next

step would be to optimize the "structure" of the network vis

a vis performance and cost of available communication

services (mentioned above), desired user- and staff-oriented

services and also necessary management considerations

including operational control. The last of these points us

to screening step 4 outlined above. As far as the netv;ork

structure is concerned, the ERIC network could take on

several possible alternatives:

1. Physically Centralized r Each of the 16

clearinghouses could have a communication link to

the selected central computer site, perhaps the

ERIC Facility (or its computer service contractor)

Unfortunately the ERIC Facility (located in

Bethesda, Maryland) is not situated very centrally

v/ith respect to the U.S. geography. Hence, if

dial-up or leased voice-grade lines were to be

employed, they could be quite costly. However,

some line-sharing techniques might be applicable

for any cluster of clear inghouses located in the

same vicinity.

2. Physically Decentralized : Each of the

clearinghouses and perhaps other information

centers, as well as the ERIC Facility and EDRS,

could be viewed as relatively autonomous

information processing sites v;hich can be

interconnected in a pairwise manner (using

voice-grade lines) subject to traffic patterns and

needs. The overall decentralized structure can

therefore take on different forms, ranging from

minimal to maximal connectedness. Each major node

could have its own local or regional network

reaching out to hierarchically lower-level user

organizations (e.g. schools, libraries etc.).

3. Logically Centralized or Decentralized : Because of

the nature of information processing and routing in

ERIC, some of the interdependency naturally ca?ls

for a centralized structure (e.g. all

clearinghouses subm.itting surrogates to the ERIC

Facility) while some of it calls for decentralized

communication (e.g. collaboration among sets of

69
clearinghouses). It would appear then that

networking in ERIC should provide the best of both

worlds. Technologically this is quite possible by

employing communications facilities (or a communications subnetv;ork) v;hich is distributed in

nature such that the nodes tied into it can view it

as logically centralized or decentralized or both,

regardless of the physical arrangement of the

links

.

This discussion has thus far presumed the feasibility

of "total" ERIC networking. If that were to become true,

based on support from the all-important management

philosophy (screening step 5 above), then NIE/ERIC v?ould be

faced with either designing and implementing its own

network, contracting out to have a competent organization do

it for them, or tying its major processing nodes into one of

the available communications networks (e.g. VANs). The

last of these alternatives is becoming increasingly popular

and viable, as demonstrated by the accessibility of a number

of on-line retrieval systems (e.g. NLM's MEDLINE) via

several such networks.

But ERIC ‘does not have to attempt total netv;orking

immediately. It could consider a gradual, piecemeal

approach, getting started with several interested

clearinghouses (as was done in the experimental study

DET-1) . Then, v;ith careful planning and interim successes,

other ERIC nodes or modules could be tied into an expandable

ERIC network. Various non-ERIC resources could thereby also

become directly accessible.

Among the specialized kinds of technological resources

likely to become available and attractive to a future

information network is the computer system tailored to

accommodate and process data. The concept of a data base

computer [ORT-6, 7] is being developed further and, with the

prospects of being coupled with mass storage facilities

(discussed in Section 3. 1.3.7) and effective associative and

parallel processing techniques [e.g. ORT-8] , will

undoubtedly influence future data base resource sharing.

Before being convinced of all the possibilities in the

networking area, other specialized experimental efforts

might be desirable. To get a better understanding of

potential future levels of data transmission volume that

ERIC may wish to accommodate, we must go beyond our implicit

assumption (above) that ERIC only needs telecommunicat i on

facilities for transmitting relatively low-volume document

surrogates plus miscellaneous short, user-input messages (or

alpanumeric strings) including on-line search commands.

Among the alternatives are: transfer of fairly large files

or file segments (perhaps involving surrogates, or

statistical data) as well as the transfer of full-sized

70
documents

If the latter documents are not yet storable in

alphanumeric form (until cheaper mass memories become

operationally usable) , then at least the facsimile

transmission of paper copy documents [ORT-9, 10] and also

their microfilm images [ORT-11] ‘is possible. Facsimile

equipment. "copies" alphanumer ics and graphics (without

"recognition" as such) from a source item by means of

scanning it somehow, ^ converting its image to electrical

signals, transmitting those over telecommunication lines and

then producing a copy of the original at the recipient site.

An example is the experimental effort entitled Federal

Library Network Prototype Project involving the NBS Library

and 14 other technical and scientific libraries [ORT-12]

Two types of facsimile machines are used. Both are

low-resolution systems, leaving something to be desired in

resulting image quality. One uses fiber optics to read the

document with a photoelectric cell, converts the light and

dark areas into electrical impulses, transmits those over

Federal Telecommunications Lines to a receiving machine, and

reconverts via stylus which burns the dark areas on a titanium oxide-coated paper. The other kind of machine

involves slow-scan television, with a camera directed at the

document providing light signals which are converted to the

audio range, transmitted over the communication lines, and

reconverted for display on a still TV picture screen. In

either case conventional telephone lines are used and a copy

of a document is "delivered" in several minutes. Getting

the paper copy sent by ordinary mail, on the other hand, may

take days or even weeks.

As the above demonstrates, networking can encompass a number of other data types and comm.unication modes and

purposes. They should be taken into account by NIE/ERIC in

justifying and designing any future (national and even

international) information services network.

4.1.3 Distributed Processing

A network can be regarded as the skeleton or the

amalgam which ties together various processing nodes and

communication lines to enable collective,

applications-or iented operation. The network is then to be

supportive of whatever kind of processing is to be carried

out and where that is to be done. In particular, if ? t is

designed properly, v;e can do "distributed processing" as

well as distributed data base work in the context of a network

The literature exhibits many useful papers [e.g.

DIP-1, 2] which clarify the definitions and concepts

pertaining to distributed processing. Sets of

considerations that should go into deciding on "going

71
distributed" [DIP-3] and numerous exemplary applications

[e.g. DIP-4] are also to be found. In essence, a distributed processing network provides for the flexibility

and many other advantages of performing the data entry, the

computer processing, the data base manipulation and the user

accessing of computer-based resources "wherever the action

is" or wherever it is most convenient and reliable to do so.

Although the term was not used in the previous section

on networking, distributed processing was implied by the

indicated desirability of having both a logically

centralized and decentralized ERIC network structure. It is

also in keeping with the earlier discussions (in Section 3)

of providing computer-based means such as word processors,

as well as certain computer-microfilm composites, at the

various ERIC nodes. In particular, the localized use of

minicomputer-based systems in a network environment [e.g.

DIP-5] is becoming almost synonymous with distributed

processing

.

Besides doing various kinds of processing locally (e.g.

inputting and editing a document surrogate at an ERIC

clearinghouse) and subsequent processing at another, perhaps

hierarchically higher site (e.g. modification and

compilation of a surrogate data base for searching) , the

special need for effective accommodation of the data base(s)

in a network must be acknowledged. If we want to be able to

do the processing in the geographical location where it is

most convenient and conducive to the application (e.g.

where the ERIC subject specialists can render decisions on

document entry) , then it follows that there may be the

logical requirement for a locally available, supportive data

base

.

This leads us then to discussions of distributed data

bases [e.g. DIP-6, 7] and how to keep track of them in a network [e.g. DIP-8]. It also should remind us of" the

intelligent terminal systems and related storage devices

(e.g. floppy disks) described in Section 3. Along that

line, even data base management systems for minicomputers

are being developed [DIP-9] and are likely to be much

improved in the future. Thus, as was suggested by a senior

ERIC staff member, the use of a DBMS in support of selected

ERIC system functions performed by minicomputer is not to be

ruled out.

Finally, distributed processing in its fullest sense

represents a kind of interesting convergence [DIP-10] of

networking technology with the various component

technologies (e.g. minicomputers, intelligent terminals,

word processors) to form a locally accessible information

system. And, if local accessiblity is really a key factor

in the future of the ERIC system, then networking and

distributed processing technology is likely to benefit both

the ERIC staff (next section) and the ERIC users (Section

72
4.3) accordingly.

4.2 Staff-Network Interaction

It is a v/ell-knovm fact that strong differences in

opinion remain among information specialists as to the

desirability of increased dependence on technology.

However, at the same time, v;e have seen how more and more

people (including secretaries in offices) become more and

more convinced of and conditioned to the trememdous

advantages to be gained.

This is also true of a decentralized system such as

ERIC in v;hich the clearinghouse staffs have remarkably

different views on and interests in using- technology. Some

of them are very excited about the prospects; others are at

least leary or cautious if not altogether opposed.

In this section we wish to briefly indicate some

important characteristics and modes of staff interaction

with an ERIC network. Focus here is on the staff members,

not on the users. It is highly probable, however, that

services experienced by the latter are contingent on the

(technology facilitated) well-being of the form.er.

4.2.1 Characteristics and Criteria

A staff member associated with an information system

may generally be characterized as playing a role involving

one or more of

duties (e.g.

with various

information

the following; operational or

inputting and outputting data) in

locally or remotely available

resources and devices, similar

functional

conjunction

(non-human)

duties in

conjunction with other locally or remotely available people

(staff members, resource persons and/or users), and

administrative coordination with, again, locally or remotely

available management-level persons. Netv/ork facilitation of

these roles is highlighted in the next three subsections.

But, before doing so, we should return to the question

of how staff personnel regard system or network performance

from their particular vantage point. If they directly

interface with the information resources, perhaps often

playing the specially trying role of serving as intermediary

information specialists for the end user, they may be most

informed and opinionated about what does or does not v7ork

well

.

Under efficiency, staff members might be especially

sensitive to throughput i.e. hov; miany information item.s

(e.g. surrogates) can be reliably input per time period, or

how many copies (e.g. of microfiche) can be made, or hov;

many on-line searches can be carried out, or to hov; many

other staff members can an important procedural change be

communicated. Such quantity-oriented interest in turn

73
influences staff ability to achieve adequate

in meeting imposed demands.

response time”

Under effectiveness, a staff person is not merely

interested in how much can be done but also in what the

quality of the resulting products is. Reliable, error-free

technology is therefore important. In addition, it should

be possible to get good legible copies of documents and

well-formatted, presentable search outputs.

Thirdly, staff-related synergism questions tend to

involve desirable convenience, ease of use or interaction,

and avoidance of such factors as frustration. The last of

these can of course apply both to technology and people.

These kinds of staff concerns should be kept in mind in

reading the next three subsections.

4.2.2 Input/Output Facilitation

A staff mem^ber who performs an operational role with

regard to an information system can wear tv;o hats. On one

hand, he or she carries out assigned staff function (s) v’hich

contribute in som.e way to the system's operation, e.g. in

preparing and inputting surrogate data. On the other hand,

he/she may in fact be a system "user," not only in support

of the above-mentioned operational role but also in behalf

of end users who have submitted various information

requests

.

Under the latter interpretation, namely that of a user,

staff members must interface with the existing technology

directly and thereby become quite familiar with and

concerned about advantages and disadvantages in user-system

interaction [see also USI category]. Unlike the average,

non-specialist users, experienced staff members are likelv

to be m.uch more knov/legeable and sophisticatd about the

available v;orld of information resources and hence they may

be more discriminating and demanding of technology and of

how it can more effectively support assigned functional

roles

.

What then

contribute to

computer processing

(perhaps by means

tailored to the need

member should

data input and

can networking and distributed

staff functions? Firstly, by loca

and storage devices as

of

of

experience considerable facilitat

editing function. The data can be

a word processing con

a particular ERIC node)

locally and then, v;hen necessary or desirable, t

via the communications network to another (central

further processing. It should be noted that

minicomputer-based system would not only enable

surrogate data but also the inputting, proce

packaging of a variety of other useful information

processing

lizing the

necessary

figuration

the staff

ion of the

comp i led

ransmi tted

) site for

a local,

input of

ssing and

products

.

74
The latter is also true on the system output side. Tf

a staff member could access the ERIC network via a local

system for purposes of directly getting at a v'hnle

repertoire of available information resources (via the

network) , surely the information search and output functions

would be facilitated. Furthermore, the staff person would

not have to be faced with an assortment of quite distinct

and inconsistent modes and means of getting at information.

The results of searching in the distributed processing

network (which might easily interface one or more on-line

retrieval systems) could, upon receipt, be processed further

in the local intelligent node.

In fact, one of the interesting distributed processing

possibilities that can be considered is the following: Let

the results of a standing query or of an on-line search,

initiated by a staff member on the basis of a "general local

user interest profile," be transmitted over communication

lines to the local floppy disk-based system, and then let

the staff members or actual end users search the locally

stored data base segment directly. This would not only

provide a way of dynamically segmenting the ERIC files, but

it might also save communications costs. The local file

could be replaced (for current awareness searching) or

supplemented (for retroactive search purposes) on a periodic

basis. Technologically this is possible. The main problem

hinges on whether such a file partition can effectively

serve the interests of a local population.

4.2.3 Coordination with Management

Besides facilitating the operational functions assigned

to staff personnel, networking and distributed processing

would also aid in improving the coordination with and

responsiveness to those who are in management, whether

centrally or decentrally located.

From the standpoint of management, a computer/communications network can and should be viewed as

what it really is: a sociological network of interrelated

or interdependent people being superimposed on the

technological network [ISC-1]. In particular, this means

that a staff person who carries out operational roles in

using the technology, and is thereby quite attuned and

conditioned to the technological interface to a wide variety

of resources, finds it very natural to utilize those same

computer/communications-based facilities for purposes of

coordinating with and responding to other people, especially

his/her management. The latter must of course also be "tied

into" the network.

Although the above claim is undoubtedly subject to

question by some people, the fact remains that to those

persons to whom the technological interface has become a natural, effective part of the everyday operational

75
workstation, it is easier to utilize that same medium for

communication v/ith management than to switch to traditional

modes such as telephone calls or manually prepared reports.

In addition, certain advantages can be identified. These

include the abilities to be truly responsive (i.e. sending

an answer immediately upon request) , to keep management

informed as things happen in

communication/correspondence

(except when personal, direct

real time, to schedule the

at one's own convenience

interaction is required) , and

even perhaps to remain anonymous when sensitive matters

(e.g. criticisms of management policy) may be involved.

4.2.4 Conferencing and Collaboration

The above- implied softv;are for enabling the

transmission of messages or electronic mail [ISC-2] betv;een

staff and management has become a recognized important

feature in state-of-the-art computer systems and netv;orks.

It can of course also provide for such communication links

between various staff personnel located at different netv’ork

sites (e.g. for purposes of job-related collaboration) as

well as between staff members and users and vice versa.

Besides sending each other ordinary variable-length m.essages

or reports, there are also software packages available to

support other kinds of modes of communication. These

include the well-known Delphi and other types of

computer-based conferencing v'hich started to draw attention

in the early 1970's [ISC-3, 4].

An important

communicating via

longer be viewed as

might be regarded

point to be m.ade about people

computer networks is that it should no

unnecessary or luxurious. Instead it

as a highly desirable byproduct of

networking. As long as we have the need for interfacing or

integrating the previously mentioned sociological netv;ork

v/ith a technological resource network [ISC-1] , the

associated resource people should be able to

cor respond/col labor ate/respond/infor m/cooperate conveniently

within the context of that network. This should minim.ally

require an effective electronic mail system. The door

should also be left open to the future possibility of

acquiring a good software package for selected types of more

dynamic conferencing which might conceivably involve ar"’ or

all of ERIC management, staff and even users.

4.3 User-Network Interfacing

If the reason for implementing ERIC was to serve users

in the educational community, then the interface betv;een

those users and the ERIC technology should be of

top-priority concern. Regrettably the users were frequently

neglected in the design of earlier computer systems and

networks. However, v/ith the recognition that sophisticated

computer and communications technology could be developed to

respond to almost any information processing/communication

76
needs, computer scientists have become more sensitive to

rendering that technology actually "usable" by people.

The USI category of the adjoining bibliography is

especially applicable in this section, but several of the

equipment categories le.g. OLT and V7PE] and studies

involving evaluations of ERIC users and uses [EVA] also have

direct pertinence to the user interface,

4.3.1 Characteristics and Criteria

Users of information systems may be characterized along

a number of different dimensions, including level of

experience, frequency of system use, cbiectives of use, user

preference, level of satisfaction v.’ith a system's services

and others. In the educational community of users, the

diversity of user characteristics is undoubtedly very great.

Ideally, we would like to be able to adapt the

technology to the individual needs and wants of users.

However, m.uch more research is required to m.ake that a realistic goal for a large population of individually

different persons. In the meantime, we can at least attain

a compromise solution based on generally desirable,

user-oriented design characteristics. V7ith regard to

networking, the next several subsections are to highlight

selected features accordingly.

Before doing so, V7e again should ask, as we did for

network staff personnel (in Section 4.2.1) how system or

network performance is likely to be judged from the user's

standpoint. As far as efficiency is concerned, the user is

probably most interested in how long it takes to get the

requested information. Is the response time in ordering a paper copy document from EDRS adequate"^ Unless the user

must personally pay for it, the cost factor is relatively

low in im.portance.

Secondly, the user wants effective, quality service.

Even if the information is made available immediately (i.e.

very efficiently), if it is in error or illegible or poorly

formatted or excessively verbose, the user will probably be

dissatisfied. For example, a teacher v.’ho v;ants to use some

table in a report as a class handout tomorrov.’ is unlikely to

be happy with a poor-quality copy produced by an inexpensive

local microfiche reader-printer. So, efficiency is not good

enough. Effectiveness is also essential.

Thirdly, the above two performance categories obviously

influence the third. Synergism has particular meaning for

users. Besides how quickly and hov; well the system, responds

to the user inquiry or request, there are

performance-related questions the answers to which are more

elusive but nevertheless very germaine. How "friendly" 5s

the netv7ork (both v/ith regard to technology and people)?

I 77
How "convenient" does it make the user’s search for

information? How "accessible" is it? The fo]lov;lng

subsections discuss several major features which relate to

such user-oriented netv;orking.

4.3.2 Technological Interface

The technological interface betw

information network can be treated in a d

consistent v;ith the organization of this r the equipment component (or local node) wi

must deal directly in order to access and

any of the information resources availabl

and, secondly, the total network of

distributed resource nodes which the u conceptualize and understand.

een user and

ichotomous manner

eport: firstly,

th which the user

communicate with

e in the network,

geographically

ser may have to

Some of the user-oriented considerations in providing

for a desirable component-level interface were already

mentioned in the coverage of computer-based means for

input/output of Section 3. The selected literature [USI

category] gives further evidence. Our interest here is not

to review all of those characteristics. Instead v;e wish to

make an important observation, contingent on the nature and

trends of distributed processing netv/orks. The

component- level user interface cannot only be made "locally

accessible" to the user, in accordance v;ith previously

mentioned goals, but it can have more "intelligence" built

into it (whether in real or virtual form) to aid the user in

overcoming the second part of the above-stated dichotomy,

namely the perhaps confusing and overwhelming network on the

whole

.

That is to say, we can alleviate the problems that

users have in being forced to knov; about a variety of

usually inconsistent types of information resources and

associated languages by providing them, with suitable

resource directories, a sensible networ k-v;ide interaction

language and other special kinds of help. The locally

accessible network node should thereby become a convenient,

manageable access "window" to the network without concerning

the user with its internal structure, control mechanisms and

other bothersome details. Although this may still be

considered as too idealistic, it surely tends to get us in

the direction of the "one-stop shopping center" for users

which was advocated (by an ERIC staff member) as a very

desirable ERIC goal. The concept of the "one-stop shopping

center" does not, for our interests in this study, have to

mean that ERIC must own or control all the "stores" in that

center. We realize that it may always be necessary for

certain information resources (pertaining to the education

community) to exist outside of ERIC. But, the inherent

nature of netv/orking and distributing processing is such

that different information stores, regardless of ownership,

can be made directly accessible to users and/or be

78
encompassed in an "information resources directory" vzhich

can aid users in determining at least what kind of

information is available from what system. One option wou?/’

be to provide the netv;ork users with access to an integrated

(multi-organizational and multi-media) search system which

would respond only on some surrogate level. The user could

then order the referenced documents or other items from the

identified source organization (ERIC or non-ERIC)

.

4.3.3 Modes of Use

One distinction in mode of use of a network of

information resources is that between on-line (or

interactive) and off-line use (Section 3. 2. 3.1). Previous

studies of ERIC users have suggested increasing interest in

the on-line mode [EVA-3] . If possible, a user who has an

immediate information need tends to want the information

now, not tomorrow and not three weeks from nov;. Note that

this does not m.ean that the information is necessarily

located at a remote site. A locally (floppy-disk) stored

file segment, if it contains what the user wants, v/ouid be

quite satisfactory.

But, the above-implied desirable situation is not

attainable by ERIC without overcoming some important

problems. Firstly, a distributed processing network of the

kind portrayed in this total system-oriented section,

coupled with the numerous on-line terminals which could

serve as user access nodes, of course costs more money.

Secondly, we must not ignore the fact that ERIC remains very

much microfiche reproduction oriented which generally

connotes "off-line" usage, even though certain orders (for

EDRS service) can be placed on-line. The computer-microfilm

composite configuration of regional (and even local user)

processing nodes, v;hich has been promoted in several places

of this report, could complement the on-line and off-line

usage modes in such a way that futuristic ERIC network

design (including the possibility of mass memory facilities

capable of full-document storage) could become increasingly

on-line oriented as it becomes more feasible and effective

to do so.

4.3.4 Types of Assistance

Presently, ERIC users are relatively on their own,

unless they are fortunate to have the services of a knowledgeable intermediary. They can of course find som.e helpful documentation on how to use ERIC [e.g. see in ERI

category] and listings of where the ERIC data base is being

maintained as searchable or reproducible. In many smaller

organizations and libraries, getting access is undoubtedly a struggle.

79

I
In the potential ERIC network environment, the user who

is being provided with local accessibility should also get

plenty of assistance. This help can take on a number of

useful forms including: on-line tutorial description of

ERIC, directory to ERIC information resources (as mentioned

in Section 4.3.2), on-line help from appropriate ERIC staff

members and possibly even coordination via conferencing

(Section 4.2.4). with other users who have similar

information-seeking problems.

4.3.5 User Feedback

Finally, in user-network interfacing, it must not be

forgotten that any vital information system, should remain

dynamic by continually scrutinizing its design and

performance and modifying it to adapt to changing user

needs. In addition to other formal self-evaluation

techniques [see EVA category] , the solicitation of and

serious attention to user feedback is crucial.

In a future ERIC network, this means that users should

have the mechanisms for easily submitting comm.ents (both

good and bad) , issuing specific complaints and requesting

immediate explanations of exceptional system behaviors

(including billings). Computerized mailing and conferencing

methods (Section 4.2.4) can be very supportive of this goal.

80
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In presenting the component- and system-oriented

results of our investigation, a number of observations about

the current ERIC system as well as both explicit and

implicit suggestions on its future technology-based

improvement were already indicated. However, to properly

complete the report, a composite of our major conclusions

and recommendations, placed into the context of other

(non-technical) considerations to the extent possible, must

be made.

This section is purposely organized in a relatively

brief, outline format in order to facilitate its reading.

References to selected supportive discussions found

elsewhere in the report are made as appropriate.

5.1 Current ERIC Technology

Our conclusions on ERIC-employed technology as it

currently exists can be portrayed as follows:

1. ERIC is highly dichotom.ized in the usage of

micrographics and computer technology (see Section

3 . 1 . 3 . 6 ) . T^is gap, which pervades and influences

the entire system, is starting to be bridged with

selected efforts, e.g. the use of COM by EDRS and

the online ordering of microfiche copies.

2. The micrographics technology that is in use by EDRS

is quite good (see Section 3. 1.2. 5). The

percentage of inadequate microfiche has been

reasonably low in recent years. Poor quality

fugitive documents selected for microfiching do

cause problems, and understandably so.

3. On the user end of the microfiche technology,

besides above-mentioned difficulties with certain

fugitive documents microfilmed, the quality of

microfiche readers and reader/pr inters is subject

to serious question. According to a number of

sources, such equipment available in the

educational community is often cheaply made or

poorly maintained or improperly used (see Section

3. 2. 2. 3) .

4. The use of computers in ERIC involves an assortment

of distinct, relatively independent facilities,

organizations and modes. These range from ERIC

database preparation (by the ERIC Facility in

conjunction with a contracted service) to the

on-line search (by ERIC users) of one of the

available commercial computerised systems. An

overall, NIE/ERIC-controlled I or -promoted

81
computer/communications network as such does not

exist (see Section 4.1,2).

5. V7ith regard to computer -associated terminals ^ a considerable assortment of mostly simple and/or

specialized pieces of equipment is in use (see

Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2.3). On the input side, ERIC

clearinghouses employ devices for OCR (of

surrogates) and for that purpose only. Various

interactive terminals are used for on-line access

and searching of ERIC files in different available

systems

.

6. Multi-purpose I/O equipment , perhaps supported by

some local computer processing and data storage

capability, is rare in ERIC. Several exceptional

sites have done limited (mostly experimental) work

with word processing equipment and other

intelligent display stations, as part of an

ERIC-sponsored project to determine advantages and

costs

.

7. ERIC technology and databases are strictly attuned

to the processing of visual data (see Section

3. 1.1.1). These are predominantly of the

alphanumeric variety although some tables and

graphs may be included. Audiovisual and other

data/media are not accommodated.

8. ERIC technology can only serve a limited data

processing purpose (see Sections 3. 1.1. 3 and

3. 2. 1.3). Computer-based manipulation and

searching is only possible on low-volume items

(e.g. surrogates). In accordance with the

dichotomy mentioned in 1 above, full sized

documents are microfiched, saved, and reproduced

upon request. Their texts are not searchable by

computer

.

9. The above-characterized collective technology of

ERIC, as it currently exists, primarily

accommodates the needs of information specialists,

working in regional information centers or sizable

libraries and able to cope with the diversity of

independent, inconsistent information sources and

media. The technology does not facilitate a uniformized, localized access by end users who

represent the bulk of potential ERIC users in the

educational community (see Section 4.3).

10.

Finally, the current technological make-up of ERIC

is surprisingly consistent with the original

intentions and plans (see Section 1.1), in spite of

many commendable improvements made over the years.

One major exception appears to be the lack of

82
communication technology to tie the pieces of ERIC

together and render its resources more directly

accessible to more users. Although ERIC users can

and do carry out on-line searches of ERIC databases

via available communications networks, that cannot

be viewed as an adequate substitute for an

all-encompassing ERIC-controlled/promoted network,

regardless of the supplier of the communication

services (see Section 4.1).

The above-stated conclusions were drawn given full

recognition of what appears to be the NIE/ERIC philosophy of

retaining a decentralized, wholesale-retail approach to the

ERIC system. Nevertheless, since we were asked to consider

how technology could improve ERIC, we feel obliged to point

out that a centralized impetus or initiative towards

encompassing ERIC resources in a more integrated, accessible

manner is necessary to gain major potential benefits. At

the heart of such efforts would undoubtedly have to be the

application of state-of-the-art computer /communications

technology coupled with distributed processing. As is

observed later, this does not have to mean elimination of

the above-indicated philosophy in favor of highly

centralized management and control by ERIC.

5.2 State-of-the-Art Technology

Costs of computer hardv;are are going down

significantly. This trend, combined with increased

capabilities and decreased sizes of mini- and microcomputers, virtually assures the ever more popular and

prevalent uses of computers in our society and even in our

homes. Even information-seeking, nonspecialist users of

ERIC may be affected.

Communication costs are also dropping, although not as

rapidly as those for computers. The communications

technology exhibits a considerable variety of effective and

reliable techniques and disciplines for sharing

communication lines and devices. Furthermore, the

interfacing of computers and communications media has

resulted in very attractive data transmission and processing

arrangements and networks.

Given this brief backdrop of the state-of-the-art of

computer/communication technology, our conclusions which

specifically apply to ERIC are as follows;

1. With regard to the microfi lming branch of the ERIC

technological dichotomy, no significant

enhancements are currently available or foreseen in

the near future, short of coupling or

cross-fertilization with computers. This is

83
partly, and regrettably, due to the fact that

research and development in the micrographics area

is not nearly as intensive and potentially

lucrative as in the area of computers and

communications, especially when the (relatively

poor) educational community is involved as a part

of the market.

2. As a corollary to 1 above, better microfiche

readers and reader/pr

i

nters are available than

those which are apparantly (or allegedly) utilized

by many ERIC users. But they tend to be more

expensive and hence less likely to be affordable by

educators (than by persons in business or

industry)

.

3. As was stated by a number of persons contacted in

conjunction with this study (both within and

outside of ERIC) , we already have the necessary

technology on hand. The technology for significan t

improvements of ERIC is already available ; we must

only determine how to apply it most advantageously

and, of course, how to support its application

financially.

4. Until and unless mass storage technologies become

operationally available and viable alternatives to

full- document storage on microfiche, a closer

coupling or integration of micrographics and

computer technologies is both posssible and

desirable for ERIC (see Section 3.1.4 and 3.2.4).

5. Mini- and mic£0 -corapu_ter based intelligent

term inal s are available for multi-purpose

application (including above-suggested coupling

with micrographics and also replacement of OCR

input, if desired) . These could be utilized at

ERIC clearinghouses and other information centers

(see Sec ion 3. 1.3. 5). However, such systems may

not be viewed as cost effective by most

ERIC-associated sites until or unless they are

regarded as a form of distributed processing v;hich,

when placed into the context of a network, can

precipitate or produce important other benefits.

6. As implied by 5, the interconnection of ERIC

processing nod es (including the clearinghouses, the

Facility, and EDRS) into a distributed information

network is a distinct technological possibility

(see Section 4.1.3). Other resources such as

on-line search systems and future database

computers could also become accessible via that

network. With regard to choice of communication

support, the current technology provides a number

of alternatives (see Section 4.1.2).

84
7 , Not only could ERIC staff and management benefit

from the above (see Section 4.2), but, above all,

the ERIC users could experience the sought-after

local accessibility to the technologically

facilitated ERIC resource network. User access

could be via local terminals, whether simple or

intelligent, which could tie into one of the

established intermediary nodes in the network.

Current state-of-the-art technology can support the

above portrait of what ERIC might become. While computer

and communication cost trends are favorable, a major effort

to change ERIC could nevertheless be quite costly and hence

require considerable commitment. In view of that and given

our understanding of NIE/ERIC thinking about ERIC and its

mission, it should be pointed out that different approaches

or strategies for technology-based improvement of ERIC exist

and should be considered.

5.3 Approaches to Improvement

It does not have to be an "all or nothing at all"

proposition for NIE/ERIC. The cost of going all out

immediately would most certainly seem prohibitive. Hence, a number of factors should be taken into account.

Firstly, for whatever option is chosen from among those

outlined in the next section, more detailed specifications

will be required based on further study expressly focussing

on that option. As was stated early in this report, our

study was not expected to arrive at design specifications.

Consistent with this clear need for more information (e.g.

on projected data flow rates among ERIC nodes) , a gradual

approach to achieving a distributed processing network in

the future may be preferred. This approach might generally

entail the following;

1. Capitalize on existing interest/expertise available

in selected clearinghouses with regard to use of

word processing equipment and intelligent terminal

systems. Foster and promote this kind of interest

and support carefully planned experimental efforts

to determine more specific ERIC requirements.

2. In like manner to 1, promote/support selected

efforts to interconnect pairs or clusters of

processing nodes for purposes of well-structured

testing of inter-node communication possibilities.

3. In addition, enable node connection with the ERIC

Facility (and possibly EDRS) for surrogate and

other input as well as to serve other functions,

over longer periods of timp than what was

85
applicable to the 1978 experimental study [DET-1]

4. In the process of the above steps, develop

well-documented "models" of suitable,

cost-effective node configurations which can

subsequently be copied by other ERIC nodes after

they become convinced, having observed successful

operation elsewhere.

5. Ultimately, the above-suggested building-blocks

approach could lead to a distributed network

encompassing all ERIC nodes plus other resource

centers and of course also user access stations.

The advantages of such a gradual, stepv/ise approach

include flexibility and freedom to try out and test

different kinds of equipment with the possibility of

arriving at several kinds of processing nodes tailored to

somewhat different sets of purposes. A disadvantage is that

it might take a long time before agreement is reached and

before anything resembling a true integrated ERIC network is

implemented

It must be noted, furthermore, that the above approach

must be carefully planned and centrally directed in order to

promise success. Among other problems, whenever a number of

parts of a "system" are allowed to develop too freely

without guidance on how to relate to others, the

( in) compatibility results may be disastrous. This is merely

to suggest that a deliberate, long-range attempt to

introduce networking and distributed processing to ERIC must

be undertaken. It should be monitored by a competent staff

of technologists who remain up-to-date on such matters as

computer -communication interfacing techniques and standards.

Simultaneously, the central leadership should take very

visible steps towards stimulating and training

current/potential ERIC users in the effective use of the

technology for purposes of achieving early and widespread

user acceptance.

Finally, if improvements to ERIC are to be expedited

(compared to the gradual approach suggested above) , the

problem with adequate funding remains.

5.4 Range of Available Options

After all is said and done in an investigation like

this, the "bottom-line" question that must be asked is:

What, then, are the choices available to NIE/ERIC and how do

they compare in terms of potential benefits and costs?

86
Detailed analyses and comparisons of cost v;ere not

feasible in this study. The heterogeneous, decentralized

nature of current ERIC, its diverse proessing sites, its

limited state of technology and its irregular usage

characteristics render any credible attempt at projecting

cost figures for future ERIC configurations a substantial

effort. While that is recommended among possible follow-on

studies (see Section 5.6), it could not be encompassed in

our work. Nevertheless, the following outline of seven

major options for technology- based improvement of ERIC is

arranged in order of generally increasing costs and

correlated benefits. The increases are mostly cumulative

due to one option being prerequisite to another. The

interrelationships are made evident below.

1. LEAVE THE ERIC DESIGN ESSENTIALLY AS IS AND

CONCENTRATE ON SELECTED IMPROVEMENT of one or more

of its technological components and uses thereof.

a. In micrographics at EDRS: use of diazo

instead of vesicular film; further

tightening of quality control in

microfilming/processing; clear,

individualized identification

of poor quality original

documents; greater coupling with

computers, e.g., with COM (thereby

encouraging other computer-based

options below)

.

b. On document input; finalization of

reproducibility guidelines; guidelines

for control of original document

preparation, perhaps using word

processing computers (again

precipitating later options below)

.

c. On ERIC Facility software; improvement

of its logical capabilities and

efficiency, in conjunction with the

contracted computer service (an option

which is possible but unlikely to reap

major new benefits for users under present

ERIC design) ; increased word processing

power to facilitate editing/handling of

surrogates supplied by the clearinghouses;

use of mini-computer based DBMS.

d. On the ERIC database; enabling other

kinds of educational resources (e.g.,

audiovisual materials) to be referenced

at the surrogate level, even if the

information media themselves (e.g.,

movies) are not directly controlled

by ERIC.

87
e. On microfiche readers and reader/printers:

promotion/support of better quality

equipment made available to ERIC users;

publicity and training of users to achieve

more effective use and wider acceptance.

2. Besides Option 1, REPLACE OR SUPPLEMENT THE

SINGLE-PURPOSE OCR EQUIPMENT IN CLEARINGHOUSES WITH

MULTI-PURPOSE WORD PROCESSING SYSTEMS. These

systems could be of different configurations,

tailored to the particular needs of respective ERIC

sites. Initial emphasis would be on more effective

autonomous operations. However, the capabilities

and intercompatibilities for node-to-node

communication should be assured, just in case this

choice leads to Option 5 below.

3. Besides Options 1 and 2, ANTICIPATE OPERATIONAL

AVAILABILITY OF A MASS DATA STORAGE AND SEARCH

CAPABILITY to better accommodate the ERIC data

bases. Among the more promising technologies are

videodisk and the data base computer. With the

possibility of such technology assuming some (or

all) of the full-document storage function

currently served by microfiche, functional

modularity in ERIC design is highly desirable.

This applies especially to efforts towards coupling

or blending micrographics with computer-based means

(e.g. in Option 4). Furthermore, it is quite

likely that future availability of such a mass

storage facility will naturally precipitate

interest in on-line accessibility and hence the

networking option 6 described below.

4. Beyond Option 2, PROMOTE MULTI-PURPOSE, COMPUTERBASED NODES AT ALL ERIC-ASSOCIATED INFORMATION

CENTERS, including clearinghouses and user

organizations. These nodes can be complemented and

modularily coupled with micrographics equipment.

Emphasis would be on relatively autonomous use of

such intelligent local systems. However, they

could occasionally be linked into other facilities,

e.g. for general ERIC data base searching (in some

on-line retrieval system) leading to local storage

and searching of resulting file segments.

5. Based on Option 2 or 4, INTERCONNECT THE

INFORMATION PROCESSING NODES via telecommunication

facilities

,

a. With the ERIC Facility node

b. With EDRS and/or a data base computer

(Option 3) c. With each other

38
This could be done in a gradual manner starting

with pairwise links where the data traffic is

adequately high. The relatively autonomous

independent operation of Options 2 and 4 would lead

to increased technology-based interdependence, with

concomitant advantages to be gained in terms of

more coordinated and effective support of ERIC.

6. Based on Option 5, DEVELOP A FULL-SCALE COMPUTER/

COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK FOR THE EDUCATIONAL

COMMUNITY. The nodes would be the multi-purpose,

small-computer based stations of the clearinghouses

and of various regional information processing

centers. Accessible resource nodes would also

include the ERIC Facility, one or more on-line

search systems providing the entire ERIC data base,

EDRS for use of COM and ordering of hard copies

(maybe also with facsimile transmission) , and

perhaps a future data base computer with mass

memory (based on Option 3) providing (selected)

full-text documents in computerized form. This

network could also accommodate the useful forms of

management/staff/user communication and

conferencing.

7. Capitalizing on Option 6, ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT

WIDESPREAD AVAILABILITY OF LOCAL USER TERMINALS AND

DEVELOPMENT OF USER-ORIENTED NETWORK INTERFACE

SOFTWARE. While Option 6 focusses on the

technology of the resources network itself, this

option emphasizes the essential ultimate objective

of providing facilitated "local user accessibility"

to the information resources. These user terminals

could either be tied into the nearest regional

information center and be controlled from there, or

they might be linked into a fully distributed

(value added) type of communications network. In

any case, although such extensive user access may

appear to be exceedingly costly, if the information

resources network is attractive enough, much if not

all of the local terminal and communications costs

are likely to be born by the users or the user

organizations. Expected substantial increases in

numbers of home computers, tied into television and

telephone devices, will serve to enhance that

prospect.

Thus, we have reached the final stage in the

above-listed sequence of interdependent options. The

technology is already here to support such recommended

efforts, which probably will be viewed as too costly or too

idealistic or too futuristic or too technology-oriented to

suit the present tastes of many people in the educational

community. But, consider the alternatives. Think ahead to

89
the year 2000 or even only 1990. With computers and

telecommunications becoming increasingly prominent and vital

in all sectors of our society, and with present-day students

and many of their teachers becoming more and more educated

in and sensitized to information processing/ transmission

technology, the current highly dichotomized and locally

"inaccessible" design of the ERIC system will surely be

viewed as inadequate by the education community.

The idea of providing users with local accessibility by

emulating a "one stop shopping center" at which (regardless

of who owns the stores) the shopping for all available types

of educational data, resources and media can be carried out,

is no longer far-fetched. It can be done, although it takes

time and money to do so. But, with enough foresight and

careful planning, given the centralized leadership to

stimulate/promote/support the effort and with the

decentralized capability and enthusiasm to respond to such

leadership, ERIC could perform in a significantly improved

manner one decade from now.

The above portrait of what is technologically possible

must be realistically qualified. The current NIE/ERIC

management philosophy appears to be banked on 1.

decentralization (letting clearinghouses and information

centers do things largely on their own initiatives) , 2. the

wholesale-retail concept (and not wanting to adopt or

control or compete with ERIC-associated functions presently

served by commercial organizations), 3. a general realism

(if not pessimism) about prospects for achieving major

increases in Federal funding of ERIC (and hence being unable

to support many of the technology-based improvements at the

information centers and user sites), 4. the view of the

ERIC mission as much more limited (e.g. to fugitive textual

documents and their preservation) than what many other

people see or would like to be true, and finally, 5. the

interest in maintaining the desirable characteristic of

ERIC, namely its acknowledged stability (as opposed to

undertaking major innovative efforts which could perturb the

system) . In addition, a general feeling seems to persist

suggesting that the educational community either does not

want or is not ready for too much more technology.

If that philosophy is retained, and perhaps it should

be, then the lower-numbered options ( 1 and maybe some of 2

and 3) are most appropriate and most likely to be pursued.

There is no question, however, that resulting, selected

improvements and user-seen benefits will be strictly

limited. If, on the other hand, the more advanced

computer/communications technology is to be more fully and

favorably applied to ERIC (through Options 4 through 7), at

least some of the above-stated views will have to be

modified.

90
5.5 Suggested Follow-Ups

Among the results expected from this investigation was

an indication of desirable, specialized follow-up efforts

(Section 1.3) which could carry out detailed analyses and/or

produce actual design specifications. With reference to the

seven major options outlined in Section 5.4, the following

studies are recommended as potentially fruitful. The list

is not exhaustive.

1. For Option 1:

a. A feasibility study to determine how and

when ERIC might be able to better control

or influence original document preparation

towards overcoming current problems with

fugitive documents.

b. A study to determine how a versatile,

mini-computer-based system (connectible

to one or more larger computerized

information services as well as EDRS)

could support and enhance the functions

of the ERIC Facility.

c. A feasibility study on the implications

and required resources for accommodating

other educational resources, such as

videotape, at the surrogate level of the

ERIC database.

d. A study to determine specific means and

I methods for promoting the use of improved

microfiche readers and reader/printers by

ERIC users and for conducting appropriate

user training.

2. For Options 2 and 4:

A study to determine several model minicomputerbased configurations to serve the different classes

and volumes of information processing carried out

at ERIC clearinghouses and other information

centers. These models should include specification

of equipment alternatives and costs.

3. For Option 3 (in relation to Options 2 and 4);

A study to determine specific methods for the

effective coupling of computers and micrographics

equipment at ERIC clearinghouses and other

information centers. Emphasis should be on modular

design with the explicit purpose of future

replacement of selected microfilm functions with

mass memory technology.

91
4.

For Option 5:

A study to determine current and projected data

traffic loads and patterns between/ among ERIC

information centers and resource sites. The full

range of operational, computer-to-computer

,

terminal-to-computer , and person-to-person types

and modes of communication should be taken into

account. A clear profile of ERIC data transmission

requirements should result. Another study, perhaps

coupled with the above, to determine the specific

types of telecommunication services, vendors and

costs which could accommodate the present and

future ERIC data transmission requirements most

effectively and efficiently.

5. For Option 6:

A study, possibly related to those for Option 5, to

determine the most suitable computer/

communications network structure (s) and form(s)

of control for the particular geographically

separated nodes of ERIC.

6. For Options 5 and 6:

A study to provide effective guidance and

consultation to NIE/ERIC on how gradual

interconnection of ERIC nodes can be achieved

consistent with and/or in anticipation of

computer/communications interfacing requirements

and standards. This would be intended to preclude

incompatibility problems due to independently

implemented computer facilities at various ERIC

sites.

7. For Option 7:

A study to consider realistic technological

alternatives and costs for localized interfacing of

present/potential users to an ERIC network, with

the expressed purpose of providing the analogy to a "one-stop shopping center."

92
BIBLIOGRAPHY Categories

I-lnemonic Subject Page

CAN Coirununication and Networking 96

CMC Computer-Microfilm Composite 96

DET Data Entry Techniques 97

DIP Distributed Processing 98

ERI ERIC Description 99

EVA Evaluation Studies 99

ISC Inter-Staff Coordination 100

MFF Microfilm and Fiche 101

OCH Optical Character Recognition 103

OLT On-Line Terminals 103

ORT Other Relevant Technology 104

US I User-System Interaction 105

V'-pE Word Processing Equipment 105

93
CAN: Communication and Networking

CMC:

1. LeGates, J. "The Lessons of EIN," EDUCOM Bullet in » Vol. 7, No. 2, Summer 1972, pp. 18-20,

2. Heller, P. S. (Ed.) "EDUNET NEWS," EDUCOM

Bulletin Vol. 14, No. 2, Summer 1979, 6-page

Insert.

3. Chou, W. "Computer Communication Networks —The

Parts Make Up the Whole," 1975 National Computer

Conference , AFIPS, pp. 121-128.

4. Gerla, M. and Eckl, J. "Moving Bits by Air, Land,

or Sea, "1975 National Computer Conference, AFIPS,

pp. 129-rrS7

5. Wood, H. M., Watkins, S.W., and Cotton, I.W.,

Annotated Bibliography of the Literature on

Resource Sha r ing Computer Network^ (Revised)

,

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication

384, September 1976, 173 pp.

6. Blanc, R. P. Review of Computer Networking

Technology , National Bureau of Standards Technical

Note 804, January 1974, 128 pp.

7. Cotton, I. V7. Computer Network Interconnection

Problems and Prospects , National Bureau of

Standards Special Publication 500-6, April 1977, 73

pp.

8. Cotton, I. W. Local Area Networking , Report on

Workshop Held at National Bureau of Standards, NBS

Special Publication 500-31, April 1978, 74 pp.

9. Computer Networking Symposium , Proceedings, Sponsored Jointly by the

Bureau of Standards and the IEEE Computer

December 13, 1978, 137 pp.

Published

National

Society

,

See also DIP category.

Computer-Microfilm Composite

94
1. Harrison, T. L. "CRT vs COM-Real Time vs Real

Enough Time," Journal of Micrographics , Vol. 7,

No. 1, September 1973, pp. 37-44.

2. Brown, C. O. Jr. "Computer Output Microfilm and

the State Archivist: Opportunity and

Responsibility," Journal of Micrographics , Vol. 9,

No. 1, September 1975, pp. 37-41.

3. Shanks, D. S. "Microfiche: A Changing Profile,"

Journal of Micrographics , Vol. 11, No. 5,

May/June 1978, pp. 325-327.

4. COM Standards: ISO/5126-1978 Computer Output

Microfiche (COM) /Microfiche A6 ; ANSI/NMA/MS2-1978

Format Coding for Computer Output Microfilm.

5. Griffith, A. K. "From Gutenberg to GRAFIX I— New

Directions in OCR," Journal of Micrographics , Vol.

9, No. 2, November 1975, pp. 81-89.

6. Kneitel, A. M. "Micrographics . . . and the

Challenge by On-Line Interactive Terminals,"

Journal of Micrographics, Vol. 9, No. 3, Januarv

1976, pp. 109-113.

7. Lawson, R. L. "A Bright Idea—An Integrated COM

and On-Line CIS," Journal of Micrographics , Vol.

9, No. 4, March 1976, pp. lF?-167

.

8. Goddard, M. C. "An Audiovisual Terminal for

Computer- Assisted Instruction," Journal of

Micrographics, Vol. 9, No. 4, March 1976, pp.

147-153.

9. Kalthoff, R. J. "Document vs. Data Based

Information Systems," Journal of Micrographics , Vol. 10, No. 2, November 1976, pp. 79-88.

PET ; Data Entry Techniques

1. Brown, P. D., Cyr, R. and Whitford, C., A Study

of Alternative Modes of Data Entry for the ERIC

Data Base , Final Report on the Direct Data Entry

Project (SIP-78-2), Contract No. 400-76-0031,

1978.

95
2. Comptroller General of the United States New Wavs

of Prepar ing Data for Computers Could Save Nioney

and Time and Reduce Errors , Report to the Congress

of the United States, GAO, FGMSD-78-39, July 18,

1978.

3.

See also OCR, OLT, and WPE categories.

DIP ; Distributed Processing

1. Booth, G. M. "Distributed Information Systems,"

1976 National Computer Conference, AFIPS, po.

789-794.

2. Kallis, S. A. Jr. "Networks and Distributed

Processing," Mini-Micro Systems, March 1977, pp.

32-40.

3. Moore, W. G. Jr. "Going Distributed," Mini-Micro

Systems , March 1977, pp. 41-48.

4. Severino, E. F. "Using Distributed Processing,"

Computer Decisions , May 1977, pp. 46-50.

5. Lane, M. G. "The Flexibility of Minicomputers in

the West Virginia Network for Educational

Telecomputing," International Conference on

Computer Communications , 1976, pp. 194-200.

6. Hunter, J. J. "Distributing a Database," Computer

Decisions , June 1976, pp. 36-40.

7. Champine, G. A. "Six Approaches to Distributed

Data Bases," Datamation , May 1977, pp. 69-72.

8. Chu, VI. W. "Performance of File Directory Systems

for Data Bases in Star and Distributed Networks,"

1976 National Computer Conference , pp. 577-587.

9. Boylan, D. "Minicomputer DBMS: Less than Meets

the Eye," Computer Decisions, January 1977, pp.

50-54.

10.

Stefferud, E. "Convergence of Technologies Points

toward the Automated Office," Trends and

Applications : 1978 Distributed Processing , sponsored By National Bureau of Standards and IEEE

Computer Society, pp. 6-11.

96
11. See also CAN category

ERI ; ERIC Description

1. Marron, H. "ERIC . . .A National Network to

Disseminate Educational Information," Special

Libraries, Vol. 59, No. 12, December 1968, pp.

775-782.

2. ERIC Processing and Reference Facility, ERIC

Systems Improvements , A Cumulative List of

Significant Changes to the ERIC System, 1966-1979.

April 1979, 12 pp.

3. McCarthy, T. S. "ERIC; Organizing Educational

Materials," American Education, August/September

1974.

( 4. National Institute of Education, ERIC—Eow to Use

It , Washington, D. C. 20208 (Undated Pamphlet)

,

20 pp.

5. National Institute of Education, ERIC—A Profile , V7ashington, D. C. 20208 (Undated Pamphlet) , 12

pp.

6. Brown, J. W. , Sitts, M. K. , and Yarborough, J.

ERIC; What It Can Do for You/How to Use it

Stanford Center for Research and Development in

Teaching, Stanford U. ; Pub. by National Institute

of Education, January 1977 (Revised) , 19 pp.

7. Brandhorst, T. Character istics of the ERIC Data

Base, ERIC Processing and Reference Facility,

Bethesda, MD, Distributed at the Workshop on

On-Line Systems and Data Bases, U. of Pittsburgh,

April 1977, 79 pp.

8. ERIC Processing and Reference Facility, Data

Processing System Documentation and Operating

Procedures Manual (for ERIC), June 2, 1969.

Supplemented by Update Notices and Documentation

(for ERIC Tape Users) produced since then.

Supplied by P. Brown.

EVA; Evaluation Studies

97
I

1. Frye, B. M. Evaluation Study of ERIC Products and

Services , Final Report (4 Volumes and Summary

Volume), Indiana University, Project No. BR 00375,

Grant No. OEC-O-70-3271, March 1972.

2. Steiger, J. M. Report and Guidelines on Improving

the Retr ieval of Product Information from ERIC , Final Report, SteTger, Fink and Smith, Inc., MIE

Order No. NIE-P-75-0050 , October 1975.

3. Havelock, R. G. ERIC Evaluation : 1969 to 1977 , U. of Michigan, Sponsored by National Institute of

Education, Draft Report, 1978.

4. Pyke, T. N., Jr., Treu. S. and Hudson, J. A.

Per formance Measurement of Interactive Graphics

Systems in Support of Computer Aided Design and

Engineer ing

,

, National Bureau of Standards Report

No. 10 451, Sponsored by U. S. Army Electronics

Command, Contract No. 71-96088, June 1971.

5. Treu, S. "Testing and Evaluation —Literature

Review," ELectronic Handling of Information , Thompson Book Co., I967, pp. 71-88.

6. Welch, J. T., Jr., Treu, S. and Camerata, P. The

Application of an Associative Memory to Chemical

Information Storage and Retrieval , Goodyear

Aerospace Corp., GER 13224 , Report on NSF Contract

C-456, April 14, 1967.

7. Taulbee, 0. E., Welch, J. T., Jr. and Treu, S.

Testing and Evaluation of the FTP System , Goodyear

Aerospace Corp., GER 13099, Final Report on

Contract AF 30 (602 ) -4039 , March 15, 1967.

8. See Also DET-1.

ISC: Inter-Staff Coordination

1. Taulbee, O. E., Treu, S. and Nehnavagsa, J.

"User Orientation in Networking," National Computer

Conference

,

, 1975, pp. 637-644.

2. Walshe, A. W. "Electronic Mail Diversifies with

Technological Innovations," Word Processing V7or Id , Geyer-McAllister Publications, April 19*79 , pp.

15-22.

98
3. Turoff, M. "Delphi and Its Potential Impact on

Information Systems," Fall Joint Computer

Conference 1971, pp. 317-326.

4 . Turoff, M. "PARTY-LINE and

DISCUSSION—Computerized Conference Systems,"

Computer Communication: Impacts and Imolications,

ICCC 1^72, pp. 161-171 .

5. Hiltz, S. R. and Turoff, M. The Network Nation : Human Communication Via Computer, Addison-V7esley

,

1978, 528 pp.

MFF: Microfilm and Fiche

1. Costigan, D. M. "A Fresh Look at Micrographic

Nomenclature," Journal of Micrographics , Vol. 9,

No. 6, July 1976, pp. 291-293.

2. Rice, E. S. Fiche and Reel , Xerox University

Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich., Revised 1972, 22pp.

3. DATAPRO Research Corporation, "Microfilm Cameras,"

AlO-501-101 to 103, June 1978.

4 . DATAPRO Research Corporation, "Microform Readers

and Terminals," AlO-502-101 to 109, June 1978.

5. McCamy, C. S. "On the Information in a Microphotograph," Applied Optics , Vol. 4, No. 4,

April 1965, pp. 405-411.

6. Bagg, T. C. "Factors Dictating Characteristics of

Systems Utilizing Microforms," Journal of

Micrographics , Vol. 3, 1970, pp. 143-146.

7. Fromm. H. J. "An Improved Method of Exposure

Control for Black and White Microfilm," Journal of

Micrographics, Vol. 6, No. 6, July 1973, pp.

253-258.

8. Bagg, T. C. "Resolving Power Chart for

Determining Quality of Microimages," Monogram,

National Bureau of Standards, August 1967, 6 pp.

9. Avedon, D. M. "Standards: The Quality Index

Method," Journal of Micrographics , Vol. 8, No. 3,

January 1975, pp. 139-140

99
10. CMIC, Documentation of its Microfilming, Fiche

Production, and Hard Copy Production, Prepared for

NIE under Contract No. C-74-0112, October 1978.

11. Liston, D. M., Jr., and Howder, M. L. Document

Reproducibility Guidelines , ERIC Processing and

Reference Facility, NIE, November 1978.

12. Letters to the Editor, "Microfiche, ERIC, and

Quality...," Library Journal , written respectively

by M. L. Howder (ERIC) , A. C. Tannenbaum (NYU)

and A. Horder (Hatfield Polytechnic, England)

,

November 15, 1978, pp. 2273-2274. '

13. Jezierski, K. Writer ' s Guide to Publication

Development , National Center for Research in

Vocational Education, Columbus, Ohio, February

1978.

14. British Standards Institute, "Recommendations for

Preparation of Copy for Microfilming," Document

5444.

15. DeSimone, A. A. "Guidelines for Copy Preparation

for Microfiche," NASA.

16. Eastman Kodak, "Materials for Visual Presentation,

Planning and Preparation," Pamphlet S-13.

17. Bagg, T. C. "A Technological Review: The Future

of Microimagery in the Library," Drexel Library

Quarterly, Vol. 11, No. 4, October 1975, po.

66-74.

18. Bassett, E. P., Jr., "The Future of

Micrographics," Journal of Micrographics , Vol. 9,

No. 6, July 1976, pp. 279-281.

19. Conners, R. J. "The Next Five Years in

Micrographics," Journal of Micrographics , Vol. 11,

No. 3, January/February~T978 , pp. 153-154

.

20. Lee, L. S. "R.E.S.T. —Reader Evaluation and

Selection Techniques, Part I," Journal of

Micrographics , Vol. 11, No. 6, July/August 1978,

pp. 339-345

.

21. Lee, L. S. "R.E.S.T. —Reader Evaluation and

Selection Techniques, Part II," Journal of

Micrographics, Vol. 12, No. 1, Sen tember /October

1978, pp. 13-17.

22. Editorial Notice, "ERIC V7ithdraw Silver Fiche

Option: Another Set-Back for Mibrofiche Duality?"

Reprographics Quarterly , VTinter 1978/79.

100
OCR; Optical Character Recognition

1. Strelau, C. A. and Schantz, H. F. "The

Evolution of OCR Equipment in Total Data Entry

Systems," OCR Today, Vol. 1, No. 1, April 1977,

pp. 12-13.

2. Shepard, D. H. "OCR—State of the Art," OCR

Today, Vol. 1, No. 1, April 1977, pp. 19 and 34.

3. Schantz, H. F. "Optical Character Recognition:

The Impact of a Maturing Technology on Future User

Applictions, " OCR Today, Vol. 1, No. 3, November

1977, pp. 6, 7 and 25.

4. Schantz, H. F. "Economic Considerations in the

Selection of OCR Systems," OCR Today, Vol. 2, No.

1, May 1978, pp. 19-22.

5. Rogoff, M. "OCR—Its Promise in Word Processing,"

OCR Today, Vol. 2, No. 1, May 1978, pp. 12-14.

6. See also DET category.

OLT: On-Line Terminals

1. Axner, D. H. and Reagan, F. H. "Teleprinter

Terminal Survey," Datamation, Vol. 24, No. 5, May

1978, pp. 232-255.

2. Granholm, J. W. "Interactive Hardcopy Terminals,"

Datamation, Vol. 21, No. 11, November 1975, pp,

51-61.

3. Granholm, J. W. "Alphanumeric Display Terminals,

Datamation, Vol. 22, No. 1, January 1976, pp.

40-52.

4. Whiting, J. and Newman, S. "Microprocessors in

CRT Terminals," 1975 NCC Proceedings, AFIPS, pp.

41-45.

5. Stiefel, M. "What is an "Intelligent" Terminal?"

Mini-Micro Systems, March 1977, pp. 50-60,

6. Bitzer, D. L. and Slottow, H. G. "The Plasma

Panel—A Digitally Addressable, Display with

Inherent Memory," Fall Joint Computer Conference

1966, Spartan Books. '

101
7.

See also USI category.

ORT ; Other Relevant Technology

1. Warnar, R. B. J., Calomeris, P. J. and Recicar,

S. A. Computer Per ipheral Memory System Forecast , National Bureau of Standards, Special Publication

500-45, April 1979, 136 pp.

2. Warnar, R. B. J. and Calomeris, P. J. Foreign

and Domestic Accomplishments in Magnetic Bubble

Device Technology , National Bureau of Standards,

Special Publication 500-1, January 1977, 42 pp.

3. Braun, L. Microcomputers and Video Disc Systems

Mag ic Lamps for Educators , SUNY at Stony Brook,

Report prepared for the NIE (undated)

.

4. Winzer, G. "Some More Reasons for the Failure of

Holographic Character Reading," International

Optical Computing Conference, April 1974, pp.

9-13.

5. Gillis, A. K., Hoffman, G. E. and Nelson, R.

H., "Holographic Memories—Fantasy or Reality?"

1975 NCC , pp. 535-539.

6.

Marill, T. and Stern, D. "The Datacomputer —

A

Network Data Utility," 1975 NCC, pp. 389-395.

7.

Anderson, D. R. "Data Base Processor Technology,

1976 NCC, pp. 811-818.

8.

Butcher, K. E. "STARAN Parallel Processor System

Hardwae," 1974 NCC , pp. 405-510.

9.

DATAPRO Research Corporation "Facsimile,"

S33-010-101 to 109 (Description), S33-010-201 to

218 (Suppliers), July 1976.

10. DATAPRO Research Corporation "The Role of Facsimile

in Office Communications," AlO-400-101 to 118,

December 1978.

11. Hopkins, VJ. L. "Microfiche Image Transmission

System (MITS)," Journal of Micrographics, 1978, pr>.

83-88.

12. "Experimental Netv;ork Links 15 Libraries," MBS

Standard , Vol. 23, No. 18, September 6, 1978, pp.

1 and 6.

102
USI : User-System Interaction

1. Bennett, J. L. "The User Interface in Interactive

System, " Annual Review of Information Science and

Technology, Ed. by C. Cuadra, Vol. 7, 1972, pp.

159-96.

2. Martin, T. H., Treu, S. and Carlisle, J. "The

Use Interface for Interactive Bibliographic

Searching: An Analysis of the Attitudes of

Nineteen Information Scientists," Journal of the

Amer ican Society for Information Science , March/April 1973, pp. 142-147.

3. Treu, S. (Ed.) User-Oriented Design of Interact] ve

Graphics Systems , ACM/SIGGRAPH Workshop,

Pittsburgh, PA, Partially supported bv NSF Grant

MCS 76-16603, 1977.

4. Treu, S. A Computer Terminal Network for

Transparent Stimulation of the User of ^ On-Line

Retrieval System,, National Bureau of Standards, TN

732, July 1972.

5. Abrams, M. D. and Treu, S. "A Methodology for

Interactive Computer Service Measurement,"

Communications of the ACM

- Vol. 20, No. 12,

December 1977, pp. 936-944.

6. Treu, S. "Conceptual Framework for the

Searcher-System Interface," Interactive

Bibliographic Search : The User /Com.pu ter Interface , Ed. by D. Walker, AFIPS Press , 1971, pp"^ 53-66

7. Bourne, C. P., Robinson, J. and Todd, J.

Analysis of ERIC On-Line Fi le Searching Procedures

and Guidelines for Searching , Lockheed Palo Alto

Research Lab, Final Report under NIE Contract No.

OEC-0-71-2559 , November 1974.

WPE: Word Processing Equipment

1. DATAPRO Research Corporation "Current Word

Processing Systems," AlO-200-101 to 115 (The

Current Office), June 1978.

2. DATAPRO Research Corporation "Word Processing

Systems:" i S13-040-100 ' s (Description), Jar^uary 1978,

103
S13-040-200 ' s (System Vendors), June 1978,

S13-040-300 ' s (Standalone Systems), June 1978,

S13-040-400 ' s (Shared-Logic System.s) , N?ay 1978,

S13-040-200 ' s (TS Service Vendors), July 1978,

S13-050-300 ' s (Time-Shared Services), July 1978.

3. Wohl, A. D. "What's Happening in Word

Processing," Datamation, Vol. 23, No. 4, April

1977, pp. 65-Ti:

4. DATAPRO Research Corporation "How to Select a Word

Processor," A33-500-101 to 114, June 1978.

5. DATAPRO Research Corporation Automated Office

Solutions, Loose1978/1979.

Leaf Volume, McGraw Hi 11,

6. Seybold Publications The Seybold Report on Word

Processing, Vol. 1, No. 11, December 1978.

7. Kleinschrod, W. A. Management's Guide to Word

Processing , Dartnell Corp., 1975, 275 pp.

8. See also DET-1 and Det-2.

104
SUBJECT INDEX

(Technological '^erms)

A

Alphanumeric Terminal 39, 58

see also: Terminal

Analog/Digital Conversion 20, 21

Archival Storage 11, 29, 43, 52

see also: Storage Technology

Associative Processing 70

Asynchronous 39

see also: Communication Technology

Audio Recording 19, 61

see also: Data Types

Audiovisual Media 48, 61, 82, 87

see also: Data Types

Automation 8, 56

B

Batch Terminal 39,57,58

see also: Terminal

Camera (for Microfilming)

Malfunction 29

Operator Error 29

Speed 25, 28, 32

see also: Television

Card Reader 57

Cartridge (Magnetic)

Cassette (Magnetic)

Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)

see also: Terminal

Communication Technology

40, 59

40, 59

45,

Asynchronous

Cost Trends

Data Volume

Dial-up Line

Leased Line

Line Capacity

Line Sharing

Multiplexing

Network 65

Physical Media

Synchronous

System 2

Telephone

39

83

67,

68

69

66

69,

69

70, 74

67

39, 58

61

64

68, 70, 92

83

89

105
Voice-Grade Line 69

see also: Facsimile Transmission

Computer Communications

Computer Technology

Cost Trends 83

Data Base 11, 14

Data Base Computer 70, 84, 88, 89

Data Processing 21

General 8, 81, 83

Graphics 21, 58, 61

Microcomputer 41, 48, 72, 83, 84

Minicomputer 16, 41, 48, 60, 74, 83, 84, 87, 91

Input Options 35

Output Options 57

see: Software

Storage Technology

Terminal

see also: Word Processing System

Computer Communications

Interfacing 86, 92

Network 67, 75, 82, 83, 89, 91, 92

see also: Network

Networking

Computer Storage

see: Storage Technology

Computer-Micrographics Composite 35, 45, 56, 60, 72

88, 91

see also: Computer-Output Microfilm

Computer-Output Microfilm (COM) 37, 45, 56, 61, 81,

89

Computerized Conferencing 76, 89

Copying Machine 11, 32, 33, 35

84,

87,

p

Data Base

Computer 70, 84, 88, 89

Distributed 72

Management System 72, 87

Storage - see: Storage Technology

Data Entry

see: Data Input/Data Input Technology

see: Data Output/Data Output Technology

Data Input

Type (of Data) 18, 23, 24

Volume 19, 23, 24

Purpose 21, 23, 24

Technology - see: Data Input Technology

Data Input Technology 4, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18ff

see also: Terminal

Optical Character Recognition

V/ord Processing System

Technology Performance

Data Output

Type (of Data) 49

Volume 49

106
Purpose 50

Technology - see: Data Output Technology

Data Output Technology 4, 12, 16, 17, 48ff

see also: Terminal

Word Processing System

Storage Technology

Technology Performance

Data Storage

see: Storage Technology

Data Transmission

see: Communication Technology

Data Types 18, 49

see also: Data Input

Data Output

Diazo Film 32, 55, 87

Digitization

see: Analog/Digital Conversion

Disk (Magnetic) 43, 44, 59

see also: Storage Technology

Diskette 40, 59

see also: Floppy Disk

Storage Technology

Display Terminal

see: Terminal

Distributed Data Base 72

see also: File Partitioning

Distributed Processing 16, 64, 65, 71ff, 78, 83, 86

Document Input 30

Original Preparation 34, 42, 87, 91

Quality Control 32, 42

Reproducibility 28, 30ff, 55, 87

Typographic Quality 28, 30, 32, 34, 38

see also: Data Input

Data Input Technology

E

Electronic Mail

see: Computerized Conferencing

Enhancement

see: Microfilming

Evaluation (of Technology)

see: Technology Performance

F

Facsimile Transmission 36, 66, 71

see also: Communication Technology

Fiber Optics 71

see also: Communication Technology

Fiche

see: Microfiche

File Partitioning 4, 60, 75, 88

see also; Data Base i Film/Filmstrip 19 '

107
Floppy Disk 40, 59ff, 68, 72, 79

G

Graphics

see also:

21, 58, 61

Terminal

H

Hard Copy Output 58, 61

see: Terminal

Microfiche (Printer)

see also: Facsimile Transmission

Holograph 33

Holographic

Memory 43

Techniques 36

see also: Storage Technology

I Information

Product 1, 3, 10

System 1, 8, 10, 18, 26, 40, 43, 44, 73

see also: On-Line Search System

Input

see: Data Input

Document Input

Intelligent Terminal 39, 59, 72, 75, 82, 84, 85

see also: Terminal

Interactive Terminal 39, 57

see also: Terminal

On-Line Search System

Interconnection (of Nodes) 3, 64, 85, 88, 92

see also: Networking

K

Keying Equipment 39

Keypunch 36

Multi-Keyboard System 40

Punched Paper Tape 40

Typewriter 36, 39, 40, 58

see also: Terminal

M

Magnetic

Bubble Memory 43

Card 40

Storage 40, 43

Tape 40 , 44, 59

see also: Storage Technology

Mass Storage 42, 71, 79, 88,

see also: Storage Technology

108
54

54, 88, 91

Message Transmission

see: Computerized Conferencing

Microcomputer 41, 48, 72, 83, 84

see also: Computer Technology

Microfiche

Color 56

Duplication 14, 55

Film Type 32, 55

Modification 52

Paper Copy 14, 30

Performance (Input) 25ff

Performance (Output) 52ff

Printer 14, 55, 81, 84, 88, 91

Quality Control 27, 29, 32, 87

Reading Device 14, 30, 54, 81, 84, 88, 91

Replacement 42

Role 25

Searching 56

Standards 26

Testing 27

Ultrafiche 56

Use 56

User Acceptance

User Training

Users 5, 25

see also: Microfilming

Micrographics

Microfilm 19, 25, 26, 29

see: Microfiche

Microfilming 16, 26, 35, 42, 45, 83, 87

Enhancement 31, 33

see also: Camera

Microform

see: Microfiche

see also: Microfilm

Micrographics 8, 14, 25, 35, 52, 81, 87

Micrographics-Computer Composite

see: Computer-Micrographics Composite

Microimage Quality

Factors 26

Index 26, 27

see also: Document Input

Microprocessor 39

see: Microcomputer

Minicomputer 16, 41, 48, 60, 74, 83, 84, 87, 91

Movies

see: Film/Filmstrip

Multi-Media Representation 19

see also: Data Input

N

Network 11, 64, 71, 83, 84, 86

Control 68

Data 66

109
structure 68, 69

Value-Added 69, 89

see also: Computer Communications

Networking

System

Networking 41, 60, 64ff, Sift, 74,

Philosophy 68

see also: Computer Communications

86 , 88

0

Off-Line 39, 57

Office Copier

see: Copying Machine

On-Line 39, 57, 78

Input 32

Search System 2, 57, 58, 70, 75, 78, 82, 88

Terminal 11, 60, 79

see also: Terminal

Optical

Character Recognition (OCR) 14, 36, 38ff, 42,

47 82, 84, 88

Laser Beam Memory 43

see also: Storage Technology

Scanner 45

Output

see: Data Output

P

Parallel Processing 70

Pattern Recognition 21

Performance Indictors 22, 37, 52

see: Technology Performance

Peripheral 41

Storage 42, 59

see also: Storage Technology

Personnel Training 37

Plasma Display Terminal 58

see also: Terminal

Printer 58

see also: Hard Copy Output

Punched Paper Tape 28, 32, 40

0

Quality Control

see: Microfiche

R

Remote Search 59

see also: On-Line Search Svstem

S

no
Silver Filin 55

Soft Copy Output 58, 61

see: Terminal

Microfiche (Reaching Device)

Software

Conferencing 76, 80

Interaction Language 78

Network Interfacing 89

On-Line Tutorial/Help 80

Resources Directory 78, 80

Text Editor 39, 41, 72

Storage Technology

Archival 11, 29, 43, 52

Car tr idge 40, 59

Cassette 40, 59

Disk 43, 44, 59

Diskette 40, 59

Floppy Disk 40, 59ff, 68,

Holographic Memory 43

Magnetic Bubble Memory 43

Magnetic Tape 40, 44, 59

Optical Laser Beam Memory 43

Videodisk Memory 44, 88

see also: Microfiche

Synchronous 39, 58

see also: Communication Technology

System (Design)

Hybrid 2

Modular Coupling 44, 61, 88, 91

Structure 2, 66, 69, 72

Time-Shar ing 41, 57

see also: Word Processing System * T

Tape

see: Magnetic

Technology Performance (Factors)

Accessibility 4, 59, 60, 64, 72, 75, 78, 82, 85, 89

Efficiency 8, 22, 24, 51, 52, 74, 77

Effectiveness 8, 22, 24, 51, 52, 74, 77

Synergism 8, 22, 24, 51, 52, 74

Telecommunication 65, 70

see: Communication Technology

Television 89

Camera 71

Terminal

Alphanumeric 39, 58

Batch 39, 57, 58

Card Reader 57

Cathode Ray Tube 45, 61

Display 40

Graphic 58, 61

Hard/Paper Copy 58, 61

Intelligent 39, 59, 72, 75, 82, 84, 85

111
Interactive 39, 57

Off-Line 39, 57

On-Line 11, 60, 79

Plasma 58

Printer 58

Raster Sean 89

Soft Copy 58, 61

Video Display 40

see also: Data Input

Data Output

Text Editor 39, 41, 72

Time-Sharing System 41, 57

Typewriter 39, 40, 58

Typing 36, 38

see also: Keying Equipment

U

User -Techno logy

Interaction

Interface

see also:

Training

8

16, 17

Termina

86

1

92

V

Vesicular Film 32, 55, 87

Videodisk Memory 44, 88

see also: Storage Technology

Videotape 19, 91

see also: Audiovisual Media

Data Types

W

Word Processing System 14, 39, 40ff, 58, 68, 74, 82, 85,

88

Standalone 40

Shared-Logic Processor 40

Time-Shared Service 40

112
Mb$>1l4A REV. 9-101

\ U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

NBSIR 80-2005

No. t, Rodptertl's Acc^5.ton No,

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

"Investigation of Technology-Based

Improvement of the ERIC System"

5. Publication Date June 1980

7. AUTHOR(S) 8. Performing Organ. Report No. Siegfried Treu

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, DC 20234

12. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS fsrreet, city. State, ZIP)

National Institute of Education

1200 19th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20208

(Contract No. NIEIA780015)

11. Contract/Grant No.

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

I I Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

IS. ABSTRACT (A 200*word or teas (actual aummary of moat aighidcant information. If document ineludea a significant bibliography or

literature survey, mention it here.)

Results of a one-year, NIE-sponsored study to identify

potential technology-based improvements in the operation,

access, and utilization of the Educational Resources

Information Center (ERIC) are described. Both current

problem areas and future possibilities are considered with

regard to the dichotomy: system components and the total

system. Emphasis is on characterizing the component

functions of data input and data output as well as the total

system operation in terms of applicable criteria (data type,

volume, purpose, performance). Technological alternatives

are then discussed with reference to those criteria. The

report concludes with a structured summary of observations,

recommendations, and possible follow-up studies.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entriee; alphabetical order; capitalize only the llrat letter of the flrat key word unless a proper name;

aeparated by aemicoiona) Educational Resourcos InformatioR Center (ERIC); information

systems; micrographics; microfiche; computer technology; communications

technology; data entry; optical character recognition; computer networks;

distributed processing; intelligent terminals; mass storage technology^

18. AVAILABILITY Unlimited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS UNCLASSIFIED

Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

20402, SD Stock No. SN003-003-

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

1 1 Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield,

VA. 22161

1 UNCLASSIFIED

USCOMM-DC
i.-j'-/ - 'I ‘•' .-I

Q I

<0 -f J ,

‘ -JB i r i. «' ’-i tVjifc .» aJMh

..'A,

-

‘Tf 1¥

:'CTw' /ir-vT

f ....

I M

-i- .'rit,Ay*s^Tj

'^ti

WJf' }^t-:iV;

2

‘^^^^ ‘

•3-

A>V.*

*

^ iV , ViflT ^

figTti^/]r f~w *niii»ini»~iiii . <i»i B ^"*^Nw*'^^»*.<^<y*— ^ *^Sl*|y^**^*?*fS

:-' - ' 'mm " - M '^ n.' .

' y-* r«

WiTiU

^' 1 XJ

|^i.0!){ijSAa*)r ?/<»< isp'iJiicai*

-:-V . 7. jit

l

' » J '%- ' ' .

, ,.h*«^f ^1 m ‘»hrf w^»n. yffv

'

' ^ ' 1^

f#. **’ f

,-4 vtwi 4ii^“ .' .(bw >s 'i|i0‘iift* t

/

t,|« vrijf,

/ 'j^H'M.- »

W

' 41 fMl Hm l^<r^

' ' ' j!:)ht*<^' * j^i.' f ‘I'f’

' .Vt .-riK-^^^ufe£. ...

’'ni* I ,vi*^iit»ti>'

'

0|

f' 5^‘4.tl>;«!'rt>i t\mT

r\* . .,-' • ijf

.'

>

4IMb h

.<*» 4.

,1 ; *! *1 ;> •'jO ,'^y*

' ’'f^

-tCM ?•’'.< U*5 »J'Cw i r

•^»W

f '.u

^.' »«

’’

I

' -

' IB* »?^o; JJA

.„ I

'

' ' »

t** - t 'i'-'m,. T^T ,•» ,1 ff'Tjl

i».w.<4 .1”’*' >A.» ,.) wl^i .•^it*' i- '»¥

• - •' “

li^iii^jT 1 A.-

' A^"> , ' it

.

' /

*' ' 1^' i,Jfc^ssi 1''^ •